Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:52:51 +0000 (UTC)

Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> writes:

>I don't know what you read into this, but let me rephrase for you. Those
>rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the
>rules we have determined to a high degree of certainty with our current
>level of precision through experiment. Those rules didn't suddenly come
>into existence because we discovered them. We discovered them because
>they existed beforehand.

In many cases, those rules *did* suddenly spring into existence.

The rules describe certain behaviors that are observed. Those
behaviors did not suddenly spring into existence, but the rules did.

Our ordinary understanding of "rules" is that it refers to statements
expressed in natural language. To take an example, Newton's laws of
motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work.
Let me be clear. I am not merely saying that the laws had not been
expressed. I am saying that the language in use was not capable of
expressing them.

In order to express his laws, Newton had to invent the concept of
mass, to reinvent the concept of force (giving it a different meaning
than had previously been used), and to reinvent the concept of motion
in a form consistent with Newtonian relativism. Before these
conceptual changes, the behavior we now describe with Newton's laws
was inexpressible in language. It makes no sense to say the rules
exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them.

I am saying that it required the invention of the appropriate
concepts, before those rules could be said to exist.

>I have not contradicted myself. You have been unable to perceive a
>distinction between rules in operation, and the formulation of rules by
>minds perceiving those operations.

You have not provided any adequate definition of "rules in
operation". I doubt that any useful definition is possible, except
in terms of what is expressible in language.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... > motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... > exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ... > I am saying that it required the invention of the appropriate ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... > motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... > exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ... > I am saying that it required the invention of the appropriate ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... > motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... > exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ... > I am saying that it required the invention of the appropriate ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... those rules *did* suddenly spring into existence. ... motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... those rules *did* suddenly spring into existence. ... motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ...
    (sci.math)