On Sep 8, 5:02 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.). > Seehttp://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.
It's all very interesting what you are saying but in practice the distinction is all about cases. It sees you are veering towards an objectivist position where you think that find a law that lasts for ever is possible. The trouble with that approach is that most practitioners in the past, working with faulty models as if they were laws would think that what they had was a universal truth. You have only to read the astrological writings of Galileo (and I MEAN astrological); or read the reflections on the 4 humours of Galen or Culpepper to realise that they were utterly convinced of the absolute truth of what we now consider rubbish. And although we think we have many of the answers and are building on solid ground now, so did they. > > 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, Whilst I agree, I have to insist that all this stuff is contingent and open to revision no matter how reliable, accurate and applicable. You seem to think that I am anti-science, I'm not. I am simply anti- dogmatic science. > > "Ability to explain past observations" > > "Ability to predict future observations" > > That is what is meant by "temporal generality." Which can all be applied to astrology AND chymos iatrics. > > 4. Apparently, your perception of reality is distorted by a type in > insanity called "anthropocentrism," > seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism, > because you confuse Ah perfect projection!! I am critiquing science for its anthropocentrism if you stop to think about it. Because what science is portraying as universally true is IN FACT anthropocentric. Science is a body of knowledge that his for humans, by humans, forged in the interest of humans. You will have to stop and think here for a moment. Astrology was thought to be a natural law of the universe that cryptic messages could be read from the stars as we were thought to be psychologically influenced by them. I am saying that this is nothing more than anthropocentrism. And if you continue to persist that science is somehow pure, objective and beyond the interests of human kind then it is you who are guilty of anthropocentrism. > > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
