editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
The Paradox of Normative Propositions (view source)
Revision as of 05:53, 11 January 2018
, 05:53, 11 January 2018no edit summary
{{Descriptive Topic
|Question=If methodologies are themselves theories that can be accepted by a community, then how can methods be deductive consequences of accepted theories, given that historically employed methods and accepted methodologies have often been inconsistent with one another?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=[[Methodology|Methodologies]], the rules of theory assessment openly prescribed by a scientific community, are one species of normative propositions. Methodologies are ''prescriptive'', as they prescribe how theory assessment within a scientific community ''ought'' to be performed. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed methodologies. For example: eighteenth and nineteenth century scientists openly accepted a version of the ''empiricist inductivist methodology'', which required new theories to be deducible from phenomena and not posit any unobservable entities. However, these scientists still accepted theories that posited unobservable entities, such as phlogiston, electric fluid, or absolute space.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 52-53]] This seems to violate either [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] or [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|the zeroth law]] of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are always deductive consequences of accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where accepted methodologies and employed methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific mosaic are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another. How can this paradox be resolved?
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment
|Authors List=Joel Burkholder|Formulated Year=20132014|DescriptionHistory=There are many historical cases where employed Within the scientonomic context, it was initially unclear whether normative propositions (such as those of methodology or ethics) fell within the scope of scientonomy and could hold a place within a scientific mosaic. The problem became acute when ''the paradox of normative propositions'' was identified by Joel Burkholder in 2014.[[CiteRef::Burkholder (2014)]] As a result, in [[MethodBarseghyan (2015)|scientific methods''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] are known Barseghyan left the question of the status of normative propositions open, by noting that further theoretical work coupled with historical evidence would be needed to conflict with professed methodologiessettle the issue. This seems to violate either [[The Third Law CiteRef::Barseghyan (Barseghyan-2015)|p. 60]] The problem was that including methodologies in the scientific mosaic would result in violations of the third law]] or of scientific change. At the time, [[The Zeroth Third Law (HarderBarseghyan-2015)|the zeroth third law]] stated that "a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of scientific changethe time". By But if ''methodologies'' were to be considered ''theories'', then, by the third law, employed ''methods are always '' would have to be deductive consequences of accepted theoriesmethodologies. among other things. But, this seems impossible in cases where If employed methods were deducible from accepted methodologies and , then how could there ever be any discrepancy between employed methods conflictand accepted methodologies? This wouldn't make any sense from a logical perspective. Under 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 zeroth law, all elements scientonomic community in 2017. The modifications consequently accepted included changing the scientific mosaic are compatible with one anotherdefinition of ''theory'' from "a set of propositions that attempt to describe something" to "a set of propositions". But[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This new definition of ''theory'' could include normative propositions and, as a result, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another. How can this paradox be resolved?|Current View=The paradox was resolved by [[Zoe Sebastien]] in 2016 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)]]|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=20152016|Accepted From Month=January|Accepted From ApproximateDay=Yes1|Still AcceptedFrom Approximate=No|Accepted Until EraAcceptance Indicators=CEThe question 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 Until Year=2016Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}