editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
|Page Status=Needs Editing
The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 20:16, 10 February 2023
, 20:16, 10 February 2023no edit summary
|Description=Harder's reformulation of the Zeroth Law states that “at any moment of time, the elements of the mosaic are compatible with each other”. ''Compatibility'' is a broader concept than strict logical ''consistency'', and is determined by the compatibility criteria of each mosaic.
In Barseghyan's presentation of the Zeroth Law, he explains it thus: "The law of compatibility has three closely linked aspects. First, it states that two theories simultaneously accepted in the same mosaic cannot be incompatible with one another. It also states that at any moment two simultaneously employed methods cannot be incompatible with each other. Finally, it states that, at any moment of time, there can be no incompatibility between accepted theories and employed methods".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.157]] Importantly, the Zeroth Law extends only to theories and methods that are ''accepted'', not merely ''used'' or ''pursued''.
What does it mean that the ''law of compatibility'' also extends to employed ''methods''? This matter receives significant attention in [[Barseghyan (2015)]]. As per Barseghyan, if two disciplines employ different requirements, their methods are not incompatible as they apply to two different disciplines, they merely "appear conflicting".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.162]] Even considering methods in the same discipline, two methods that "appear conflicting" are not necessarily incompatible. For instance, these methods may either be complementary ("connected by a logical AND"), providing multiple requirements for new theories, or provide ''alternative'' requirements for new theories ("connected by a logical OR").[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.162-3]] Thus, Barseghyan asserts that methods are only incompatible "when they state ''exhaustive'' conditions for the acceptance of a theory. Say the first method stipulates that a theory is acceptable if and only if it provides confirmed novel predictions, while the second method requires that in order to become accepted a theory must necessarily solve more problems than the accepted theory. In this case, the two methods are incompatible and, by the ''law of compatibility'', they cannot be simultaneously employed".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.163]] Barseghyan also proposes that the only possible conflict between ''methods'' and ''theories'' is an indirect one, given that theories are descriptive propositions, whereas methods are prescriptive and normative. Thus, the method would have to be incompatible with those methods which follow from the theory for the method and theory to be incompatible. We should be careful not to confuse these the concepts of ''compatibility'' and ''consistency''. Barseghyan details the distinction between these two concepts:
<blockquote>"the formal definition of inconsistency is that a set is inconsistent just in case it entails some sentence and its negation, i.e. ''p'' and ''not-p''. The classical logical principle of noncontradiction stipulates that ''p'' and ''not-p'' cannot be true ... In contrast, the notion of compatibility implicit in the zeroth law is much more flexible, for its actual content depends on the criteria of compatibility employed at a given time. As a result, the actually employed criteria of compatibility can differ from mosaic to mosaic. While in some mosaics compatibility may be understood in the classical logical sense of consistency, in other mosaics it may be more flexible ... in principle, there can exist such mosaics, where two theories that are inconsistent in the classical logical sense are nevertheless mutually compatible and can be simultaneously accepted within the same mosaic. In other words, a mosaic can be ''inconsistency-intolerant'' or ''inconsistency-tolerant'' depending on the criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community of the time"[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.154]].</blockquote>
In 2018, [[Patrick Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar]] suggested that the law has no empirical content as it fails to say much beyond what is implicit in the notion of [[Compatibility|''compatibility'']].[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)]] Consequently, they suggested that the zeroth law is to be replaced by a definition of ''compatibility'' as well as a [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|compatibility corollary]]. This [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0015|modification]] became accepted in 2020 and the zeroth law became rejected.
}}
{{YouTube Video
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Inconsistency Tolerance 2- General and singular|Description=As per Barseghyan, "In the second scenario(of inconsistency tolerance), we are normally willing to tolerate inconsistencies between an accepted general theory and a singular proposition describing some anomaly. In this scenario, the general proposition and the singular proposition describe the same phenomenon; the latter describes a counterexample for the former. However, the community is tolerant towards this inconsistency for it is understood that anomalies are always possible. No doubt, we are never pleased to find out that a certain accepted empirical theory faces anomalies, but we also understand that no empirical theory is infallible and, therefore, the mere presence of anomalies is no reason for rejecting our accepted empirical theories.. We appreciate that both the general theory in question and the singular factual proposition may contain grains of truth. In this sense, we are anomaly-tolerant".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp."160]]
|Example Type=Hybrid
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Method and Theory Incompatibility
|Description=Barseghyan presents the following example of the indirect incompatibility that can exist between theories and methods:
<blockquote>Say there is an accepted theory which says that better nutrition can improve a patient’s condition. We know from the discussion in the previous section that the conjunction of this proposition with the basic requirement to accept only the best available theories yields a requirement that the factor of improved nutrition must be taken into account when testing a drug’s efficacy.
Now, envision a method which doesn’t take the factor of better nutrition into account and prescribes that a drug’s efficacy should be tested in a straightforward fashion by giving it only to one group of patients. This method will be incompatible with the requirement that the possible impact of improved nutrition must be taken into account. Therefore, indirectly, it will also be incompatible with a theory from which the requirement follows.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.163-4]]</blockquote>
|Example Type=Hypothetical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
