Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:59:39 GMT

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:21:32 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>> Neil W Rickert said:
>>
>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>>Neil W Rickert said:
>>>
>>>>>>If I misunderstood Bob, maybe he wasn't clear. But, "There are no laws
>>>>>>other than what we prescribe to make sense out of what we perceive and
>>>>>>experience." seemms pretty clearly wrong to me.
>>>
>>>>>It seems pretty clearly right to me. The world managed to get along
>>>>>quite well before any of these "natural laws" had been written down.
>>>>>It seems pretty clear that nature is not consulting these laws to
>>>>>decide how to behave. It is not up to nature to obey our laws.
>>>>>Rather, it is up to us to design our laws so that that do a good (if
>>>>>sometimes imperfect) job of describing nature.
>>>
>>>>As I said to Bob, you confuse natural law with theory concerning natural
>>>>law.
>>>
>>>I don't think I am the one who is confused.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Theory is a product of our minds, and nature couldn't give a damn
>>>>about our theories for its operation.
>>>
>>>Good. I'm glad we agree on that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Natural law, on the other hand, is the cocnsistent system
>>>>that determines the behavior of the universe, and has existed at least
>>>>as long as the universe itself.
>>>
>>>You contradict yourself. In message <MPG.1c76a036129f2a2a9896fc@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree, Albert. What we consider natural laws are simply those
>>>>theorized formulas that have withstood enough experimentation that we
>>>>give them an extermely high probability of being correct. I still
>>>>believe that the actual natural laws are there independent of our
>>>>theories and formulas.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Another approach:
>
>Those rules that we have invented and refer to as the natural
>laws have for us a high degree of certainty because empirical
>evidence seems to support them. However, our invented rules that
>we use to make sense of empirical evidence, may, at any time, be
>falsified by new empirical evidence. We may still be in the Matrix.

Technically a large amount of empirical evidence just doesn't
invalidate them. The matrix is our heads. We're always inside.

>> 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.
>>
>>>That agrees with what I have said are natural laws. It disagrees
>>>with what you wrote several paragraphs up.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Neil, learn to read.
>
>
>--
>"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"

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... >> they existed beforehand. ... However, our invented rules that ... >falsified by new empirical evidence. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... >> they existed beforehand. ... However, our invented rules that ... >falsified by new empirical evidence. ...
    (sci.math)