Changes

|History=Within the scientonomic context, it was at first unclear whether normative propositions could hold a place within a scientific mosaic and, therefore, within the scope of scientonomy. This uncertainty also applied to methodological dicta; it was proposed that a full-fledged theory of scientific change, together with history, could attempt to settle the issue.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 60]] At that time, however, the theory of scientific change did not include normative propositions until the acceptance of modifications suggested by [[Zoe Sebastien ]] - modifications which included changing the definition of theory from “a set of propositions that attempt to describe something” to “a set of propositions”. [[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This new definition of theory could include normative propositions and, as a result, methodologies. However, regarding this new definition of ‘theory’ as encompassing methodologies, a paradox appears when this definition comes into contact with other components of the theory of scientific change.

Once normative propositions and methodologies began to count as theories, the paradox of normative propositions arose. The problem was that it appeared to violate the third law of scientific change, which stated: a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. If employed methods can must be deducible from other methods or methodologies, differences in methods and methodologies would result in a violation - either methods can follow from methodologies or they can’t. Not only was the third law violated, the incompatibility of the conjuncts of the paradox (that methodologies count as theories; and the third law stating that methods should follow from said methodologies) resulted in the zeroth law’s violation as well. The zeroth , according to the law states that , at any moment, the theories in a mosaic must be compatible.|Current View=The paradox was resolved by [[Zoe Sebastien]] when she suggested a [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|new formulation]] of the third law which made it clear that employed methods shouldn't follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]]