Well stated.... much has to be considered within the contextual backdrops... including our given eco- cultural paradigms. This is what Wittgenstein's primary concern was about... linguistic referencing is of paramount importance here.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:31 AM, awori achoka <[email protected]>wrote: > Humans--let us proceed with care---without allowing the *tyranny of the > inadequacies of human cultural expression* (language)--to bog us down. > Call them laws, or orders---nature does have a pre-existent organizing > principles within which humans are (also) just but an element. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:02 PM, aruzinsky > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 1. I did not say or imply "eternal and absolute." I said SUBSTANTIAL >> spatial and temporal generality. >> >> 2. What you are calling "laws" were, in fact, models. Whereas many >> past scientists falsely believed that their models were laws, I >> suspect that modern scientists tend to no longer believe in laws (I >> don't know because I haven't taken a poll.). See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling. The practical >> difference between a law and a model is that a user, who knows the >> model is not a law, isn't disgraced and does not whine when a better >> model is discovered. Probably, engineers took the lead in scientific >> modeling but that history isn't as important as the current popular >> state of thinking. >> >> 3. It is not the belief in the model that must have substantial >> spatial and temporal generality, as you seem to wrongly assert, but >> the applicability and accuracy of the model that must have substantial >> spatial and temporal generality. Note at the bottom of the above >> reference, >> >> "Ability to explain past observations" >> >> "Ability to predict future observations" >> >> That is what is meant by "temporal generality." >> >> 4. Apparently, your perception of reality is distorted by a type in >> insanity called "anthropocentrism," see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism, >> because you confuse >> >> 4.1. human history and science >> >> 4.2. ... generality of human belief in laws/models with ... generality >> of laws/models. >> >> >> On Sep 8, 5:47 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I think I have made my position clear on this elsewhere. Laws are not >> > eternal and absolute. Many are discarded and reinvented in the light >> > of new information, some persist despite that. But some laws that are >> > now fully abandoned served mankind for 100s of years and were "know" >> > to be true despite their eventual dismissal. >> > If scientists are unaware of the historical contingency of the laws >> > that assert, as so many are, then they will remain intransigent and >> > resisting of modifications to their own beliefs, and treat innovation >> > with inertia. >> > >> > On Sep 7, 1:19 am, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Science is the study of laws or models with substantial spatial and >> > > temporal generality. Who did what at a specific time and place is not >> > > a science because it lacks spatial and temporal generality. >> > >> > > On Sep 6, 12:06 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > On Sep 6, 5:20 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > On Sep 5, 3:04 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > Every country does that. American too. They claim to have the >> first >> > > > > > example of an electric light, but this is false. The first >> working >> > > > > > electric light was invented by Farraday in 1859. The South >> Foreland >> > > > > > Lighthouse was the world's first ever man made electric light, >> and got >> > > > > > its power from another of Farraday's inventions the electrical >> > > > > > generator. >> > >> > > > > > On Sep 5, 4:52 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > On Aug 22, 10:17 am, Awori <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > Is there such a thing as an original idea? Can ideas >> originate from >> > > > > > > > without? >> > >> > > > > > > Is imitation the opposite of your concept of "original idea"? >> Many >> > > > > > > ideas are repeated without imitation, e.g., reinventing the >> wheel. It >> > > > > > > used to be a joke that the Soviet Union/Russia claimed that >> many >> > > > > > > things were invented by its citizens before famous American >> inventors >> > > > > > > such as Thomas Edison. Many of those claims were true. Since >> there >> > > > > > > is no way of knowing whether something was previously invented >> by >> > > > > > > intelligent life on another planet, there is no point on >> dwelling on >> > > > > > > the concept of first idea. Instead, you should concentrate on >> the >> > > > > > > concept of imitation. For example, look at all the people >> jumping on >> > > > > > > the DNA bandwagon in this thread. >> > >> > > > > > > "As each organism is unique, then all DNA arrangements are >> original." >> > > > > > > - Identical twins are not unique in any way related to DNA. >> Any >> > > > > > > uniqueness of identical twins should be attributed to >> environment. >> > > > > > > Same for organisms that reproduce asexually.- Hide quoted text >> - >> > >> > > > > > - Show quoted text - >> > >> > > > > Small talk: >> > >> > > > > As a child in the early 1950s, while watching a quiz show on TV, a >> > > > > contestant selected "Science" as a topic. The question was, "Who >> > > > > invented the steam engine?" I shouted at the TV, "That's not >> > > > > science. That's history!" Apparently, some immoral history >> buffs >> > > > > had wormed their way into positions of authority on that TV show >> just >> > > > > to shove history lessons, disguised as science, up my ass. >> Probably, >> > > > > the same kind of assholes who like to say, "Those who do not learn >> > > > > from history are doomed to repeat it." Regardless of my learning >> from >> > > > > history, I am not doomed to reinvent the steam engine. >> > >> > > > I'm not so sure I'd so easily disregard history of science as part >> of >> > > > science. As a piece of trivia Newcomen's (or was it Watt's) >> > > > achievement on a developmental level is highly significant to an >> > > > understanding of science which is far more contingent on historical >> > > > interests than scientist would like to admit. Steam Power massively >> > > > enhanced our understanding of the nature of heat, energy and its >> > > > relation to fuel and power.- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Epistemology" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
