24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016) (view source)
Revision as of 04:24, 4 March 2017
, 04:24, 4 March 2017no edit summary
Sebastien's solution rejects premise (2), by clarifying that an employed method shouldn't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''. In those cases, when an employed method is in conflict with an accepted methodology, it is an indication that the former doesn't follow from the latter. As for their mutual inconsistency, that is allowed by [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|the zeroth law]].
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
|History=Logically speaking, the third law as stated: “A method is employed only if it follows from other methods or theories,” seems to imply a universality: all other methods, all theories. Zoe Sebastien’s resolution to the paradox of normative propositions specifies that the universal implications need not be the case. The resolution as applied to the third law, would read that employed methods didn’t follow from all accepted theories, but some. This new formulation has been accepted.
}}
{{Acceptance Record
