Philosophers of science in this period also thought that they had a clear view of scientific rationality: to be rational is to accept and reject hypotheses according to the rules of method, or perhaps to distribute degrees of confirmation in accordance with Bayesian standards.
Descartes gave four rules of method in philosophy based on mathematical procedure: (1) accept as true only indubitable (self-evident) propositions, (2) divide problems into parts, (3) work in order from simple to complex, and (4) make enumerations and reviews complete and general.
Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc).
Arguing against a "naturalistic" theory of method which makes standards depend on practice, Popper opted instead for a strongly normative epistemology, a discipline which lays down optimum rules of method for scientists to follow.
The standard empiricist conception of theory evaluation regards our judgment of the epistemic quality of a theory to be a matter of applying rules of method to the theory and the evidence.
Psychology can either take the laws of logic as premises and axioms of its own theories, or it can rely on the laws of logic merely as rules of method in accordance with which psychology must proceed.
In this sense, the first of Descartes's rules of method in the Discourse is an Academic principle, perhaps the only one: to avoid precipitateness and prejudice and to rely only on one's own ability to discern the truth.
It is not surprising, then, that rules of method that courts have claimed to borrow from science have been constructed within the processes of adjudication, as courts articulate and then transmit such rules from one jurisdiction to another.
In the day-to-day practice of science, it is precisely the negotiation between competing viewpoints that discloses flaws in arguments and gives rise to preferred rules of method.
These principles reflected the prevailing argument in this narrative that unthinking application of techniques or rules of method does not guarantee quality, but rather an understanding of and engagement with the values unique to qualitative paradigms are crucial for conducting quality research [ 6, 25, 31].
