editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram fileResource=Static-procedural-methods.jpg}}Barseghyan (2015) This theorem explains why all procedural methods are necessarily static|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. By definition all procedural methods don’t presuppose contingent propositions but only necessary ones. 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 method? Nowhich axiomatic proof could guarantee absolute certainty about the world. [[Rudolf Carnap]] and the logical positivists attempted to axiomatize scientific theories, because procedural methods only presuppose necessary truths and by definition they cannot be incompatible with each other, as they hold therefore apply a universal method of logical deduction in all possible worldstheir form of inductive verificationism. ThereforeContra the positivist approach, no procedural but still assuming a universal and static characteristic of method can be incompatible with or replace another procedural , Popper introduced a falsificationist methodof science. For example, a newly accepted mathematical theorem that has been derived from other accepted [[CiteRef::Andersen and necessarily true mathematical propositions gets accepted into the mosaic Hepburn (by the Second Law2015). ]] This theorem method rejected ever achieving absolute certainty in turn can lead to the truth of a new procedural methodtheory, but Popper and contemporaries nonetheless assumed that this falsificationist method ought to have, and in fact had, applied to all scientific communities across time and space. The particular differences between each method cannot be incompatible with are elaborated on the other employed methodspage on [[Method]], for the same reason 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 characterized as subscribing to a Static Methods theorem cannot be incompatible with previously proven theorems.
Can a procedural method be replaced by a substantive method? NoMore recently, because substantive 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, by definitionan empirical question: have there been any methods which have not changed through history? And second, presuppose at least some contingent proposition while procedural a theoretical question: Are there any methods only necessary ones, which are compatible with any truth, whether in principle, immune to change? Both Worrall and Laudan agreed that there exist [[Substantive Method|substantive methods]] shaped by contingent or necessary, already accepted into the mosaicproposition and therefore not static. ThereforeHowever, Laudan held that no substantive method can be incompatible with or replace any methods have ever been [[Procedural Method|procedural method. For example: if the deductive acceptance method, whereby a propositon follows deductively from other accepted ]] — shaped by only necessary propositions, were not and therefore immune to be acceptedchange — whereas Worrall contents that certain methods, this would imply a violation of such as the very definition of hypothetico-deductive inferencemethod, according to which truth is transmitted from are in fact procedural and historically have formed the premises to the conclusionbase of scientific reasoning.|ResourceHistory=Barseghyan (2015)
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 22:15, 10 November 2023
, 22:15, 10 November 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|Topic=Static vs. Dynamic Methods
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Static Procedural Methods theorem
|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=All procedural methods are necessarily static.
|Formulation FileObject=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg|Topic=Static vs. Dynamic Methods
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg
|Description=A [[Procedural Method|procedural method]] is a method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions; it can only presuppose necessary truths 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.
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
