Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:21:32 -0600
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.
>
> 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"
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
