Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
The Paradox of Normative Propositions (view source)
Revision as of 22:49, 28 March 2017
, 22:49, 28 March 2017no edit summary
The problem was that including methodologies in the scientific mosaic would result in violations of the third law of scientific change. At the time, [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] stated that "a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time". But if ''methodologies'' were to be considered ''theories'', then, by the third law, employed ''methods'' would have to be deductive consequences of accepted methodologies. among other things. If employed methods were deducible from accepted methodologies, then how could there ever be any discrepancy between employed methods and accepted methodologies? This wouldn't make any sense from a logical perspective.
The theory of scientific change did not include normative propositions until a resolution to the paradox of normative propositions proposed by [[Zoe Sebastien]] was accepted by the scientonomic community in 20162017. The modifications consequently accepted 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.
|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)]]
}}