Changes

|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive

|Formulation FileObject=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg|Topic=Static vs. Dynamic Methods

|Formulation File=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg|Description=A '''[[Procedural Method|procedural method''' ]] is a method which presupposes a doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions; it can only presuppose necessary truth about the worldtruths such as those of mathematics or logic. Given the nature of necessary truths, it is impossible for one such truth to contradict another necessary truth since it must be true in all possible worlds. Therefore, it follows from the '''Method Rejection''' theorem that, since there can be no elements at odds with a necessary truth, any procedural method is, in principle, static.{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram fileResource=Static-procedural-methods.jpg}}Barseghyan (2015) This theorem explains why all procedural methods are necessarily static. By definition all procedural methods don’t presuppose contingent propositions but only necessary ones|Prehistory=Philosophers of science up until [[Karl Popper]] and [[Imre Lakatos]] typically believed that there was at least one element of the scientific mosaic immune to change. ThusFor most, from this static element was believed to be a conjunction of: 1transhistorical scientific method. the Philosophers have not always agreed what this static [[Method Rejection Theorem (derived in turn from #Prehistory|method]] should be, but almost all until the First Law for Methods and the Zeroth Law or Law second half of Compatibility), 2. the premise twentieth century believed that no procedural the scientific method can should be incompatible with any other methods, either procedural or substantive, and 3. the premise that procedural methods cannot be replaced by any other methods, it follows that all procedural methods are necessarily statican unchanging element in a scientific mosaic.[[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2008)]]

Can [[Aristotle]] and his successors assumed a procedural method be replaced by another procedural which axiomatic proof could guarantee absolute certainty about the world. [[Rudolf Carnap]] and the logical positivists attempted to axiomatize scientific theories, and therefore apply a universal method of logical deduction in their form of inductive verificationism. Contra the positivist approach, but still assuming a universal and static characteristic of method, Popper introduced a falsificationist method of science.[[CiteRef::Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]] This method? Norejected ever achieving absolute certainty in the truth of a theory, because procedural methods only presuppose necessary truths but Popper and by definition they cannot be incompatible with each othercontemporaries nonetheless assumed that this falsificationist method ought to have, as they hold and in fact had, applied to all possible worldsscientific communities across time and space. ThereforeThe particular differences between each method are elaborated on the page on [[Method]], no procedural method but it is due to the assumption that their own explicated procedure of theory acceptance applies to all scientific communities that these philosophers can be incompatible with or replace another procedural method. Example: newly accepted mathematical characterized as subscribing to a Static Methods theorem.

Can More recently, the debate between Laudan and Worrall[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1988)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1989a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1989)]] elucidated the distinction between two questions about static methods. First, an empirical question: have there been any methods which have not changed through history? And second, a procedural method be replaced by a substantive methodtheoretical question: Are there any methods which are, in principle, immune to change? No, because Both Worrall and Laudan agreed that there exist [[Substantive Method|substantive methods, ]] shaped by definition, presuppose at least some contingent proposition while and therefore not static. However, Laudan held that no methods have ever been [[Procedural Method|procedural methods ]] — shaped by only necessary ones, which are compatible with any truthpropositions and therefore immune to change — whereas Worrall contents that certain methods, whether contingent or necessary, already accepted into such as the mosaic. Thereforehypothetico-deductive method, no substantive method can be incompatible with or replace any are in fact procedural method. Example: deductive inferenceand historically have formed the base of scientific reasoning.|ResourceHistory=|Page Status=Needs Editing|Editor Notes=Barseghyan (2015)