Comment administrators, editor, Administrators
27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
Modification:Sciento-2016-0001 (view source)
Revision as of 01:03, 24 January 2017
, 01:03, 24 January 2017no edit summary
{{Modification
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Summary=Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from ''all'' accepted theories and employed methods but only from ''some''.
|Date Suggested Year=2016
|Date Suggested Month=September
|Date Suggested Day=13
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
|Preamble=Currently, a [[theory]] is defined as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something. This definition excludes ''normative propositions'' from the scope of the TSC. Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method(Barseghyan-2015)|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology(Barseghyan-2015)|methodologies]]. This seems to violate [[The Third Law(Barseghyan-2015)|the third]] and [[The Zeroth Law(Harder-2015)|zeroth laws]] of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where methodologies and methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific mosaic are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another.|To Accept=The Third Law (Sebastien-2016), Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016),
|To Reject=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015),
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2017|Date Assessed Month=January|Date Assessed Day=21
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=There was a community consensus that "the new formulation of the third law does bring an additional level of precision to our understanding of the mechanism of method change".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-10|c1]]</sup> The community agreed that the new formulation "makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-20|c2]]</sup> Importantly, it was also agreed that the modification "solves the paradox of normative propositions".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-8|c3]]</sup>
|Question Answered=Mechanism of Method Employment,
}}
