Static vs. Dynamic Methods
Are there any methods which are immune to change?
The question of whether or not methods are static or dynamic is a fundamental question in the scientonomic community. A method is said to be static when it is immune to change, and dynamic when it is not.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Barseghyan (2015) picked up on the Worrall-Laudan debate and further clarified things, first by providing a more precise distinction, already hinted at by Worrall, between on the one hand methods as the implicit rules employed in theory assessment and methodology, or the explicitly formulated rules, on the other Second, by breaking the issue debated into two different questions, one empirical and pertaining to HSC (“are there any methods that have not changed over time?”) and another theoretical and pertaining to TSC (“are there any unchangeable or immune methods in principle?”). He also provided a more precise distinction of of substantive and procedural methods, by asking what sorts of presuppositions they respectively make. In this order of ideas, substantive methods are those which presuppose at least one contingent proposition, while procedural methods are those which don’t presuppose any, but only necessary truths. An example of the former is the double-blind trial method and an example of the latter is the deductive acceptance method. However, specification and implementation of procedural methods depend on both the type of logical inference rules employed, as well as on the applicability of these rules to different types of propositions (true or quasi-true). In the empirical sciences, in which propositions are fallible and contingent, the thesis of fallibilism is assumed and paraconsistent logic is applied. Barseghyan suggests that the question as to whether methods change or not amounts to asking whether methods (both procedural and substantial) can be rejected or replaced, or if there are irreplaceable methods and concludes that TSC provides an answer to this question, expressed in the Dynamic Methods Theorem and the Static Procedural Methods Theorem.
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | That is when the community accepted its first answers to this question, the Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. | Yes |
All Theories
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | All substantive methods are necessarily dynamic. | 2015 |
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | All procedural methods are necessarily static. | 2015 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 | |
Scientonomy | Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 |
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015).
Mechanism of Method Rejection
Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) states: "A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed."
According to the method rejection theorem, a method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with it become employed.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Method Rejection.
References
- ^ Motterlini, Matteo. (Ed.). (1999) For and Against Method. University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Kuhn, Thomas. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Feyerabend, Paul. (1975) Against Method. New Left Books.
- a b c Worrall, John. (1988) Review: The Value of a Fixed Methodology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 263-275.
- ^ Laudan, Larry. (1989) If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, 369-375.
- ^ Worrall, John. (1989) Fix It and Be Damned: A Reply to Laudan. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, 376-388.
- ^ Laudan, Larry. (1984) Science and Values. University of California Press.
- ^ Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.