Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Modification:Sciento-2017-0002 (view source)
Revision as of 19:13, 10 February 2023
, 19:13, 10 February 2023no edit summary
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=When Accept a new ontology of scientific change where the paradox of two fundamental elements are theories - both descriptive and normative- and methods.
|Date Suggested Year=2017
|Date Suggested Month=January
|Date Suggested Day=23
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien,
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
|Preamble=Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded from the ontology of scientific change since including them appears to give rise to [[The Paradox of Normative Propositions|a destructive paradox]] first identified by [[Joel Burkholder]]. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology|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 are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another.
Since the paradox of normative propositions has been resolved (see modification [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|Sciento-2016-0001]]), it is now possible to bring the normative theories back into the mosaic as proper elements of the ontology of scientific change.
|Modification=Modify the ontology of scientific change by accepting that both ''descriptive'' and ''normative'' theories can be part of a mosaic. Consequently, modify the definition of ''theory acceptance'' to make it possible for both descriptive and normative theories to be accepted.
|To Accept=Ontology Normative Theory Exists, Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Scientific Change - Theories and Methods Theory (Sebastien-20172016), Theory Acceptance (Sebastien-2016),|To Reject=Ontology of Scientific Change - Theories and Methods (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015),|Parent ModificationModifications=Modification:Sciento-2017-0001|Automatic=No|Incompatible Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2016-0002|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2017|Date Assessed Month=February|Date Assessed Day=15
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-31|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-34|c2]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c4]]</sup>
|Superseded By=
}}