Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:01:12 -0600
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> robert j. kolker said:
>
>>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>>Connected how. I don't believe the term "dots" is in the mathematical
>>>lexicon as you demand of me. Is it some kind of private language?
>>
>>It is a metaphor, mostly wasted on you. O.K. Plain language. We perceive
>>and experience only particular events. We put the particulars together
>>with general statements some of which are laws and some of which are
>>conditional statements connecting observable conditions to observable
>>outcomes. The latter are the events predicted by means of the general
>>laws and the assumed conditions.
>>
>>In short, the particular events are out there. The laws and hypothetical
>>causes are up in our heads, between our ears. The order seen in nature
>>consisting of general patterns conceived by humans. If there were no
>>humans on this planet there would be no physical laws.
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>>
>
> Bob -
>
> For what it's worth, I understand what you are saying. Events are
> essentially points in the space-time continuum, and individual events
> are all that we experience. The rules we infer from classes of events
> are built in our heads by finding patterns/correlations/"lines" between
> the events we have witnessed. The theories we invent are based on these
> patterns. That psychological side of the equation we agree on.
>
> It's the other side where we disagree. While we gather data from these
> points, and draw lines where we see them between these points, those
> points are where they are for a reason. The lines we draw would not be
> straight if the reasons weren't straight. The consistency in our systems
> is a reflection of the consistency in the systems they represent. that
> consistency is a priori and determines the universe, which determines
> our understanding of it.
Bob is wrong in saying categorically that without humans there
would be no physical laws. We can't know that.
But he would be correct in saying that no amount of empirical
evidence, regardless of how it is interpreted, can prove that
physical laws actually exist or existed in Nature. After all,
flipping a coin a trillion times could possibly result in a
trillion heads. Not even consistency is proof that what we
observe actually has any pattern other than coincidently.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
