On Sep 8, 2:47 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Wrong. As may be typical of engineers, I am stoically agnostic, in that regard. And, as an electrical engineer, I point out that, despite inflation, TVs are better and cheaper than they were 60 years ago. What has your kind accomplished lately? > 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. > If a model is perfectly reliable, accurate and applicable, the only valid reason to revise a model is if the revision is simpler. Dogma is not a large part of the definition of science but with the practice and do not confuse the definition with the practice. First, clean your own house of dogma. > > > > "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. > > I don't know what "chymos iatrics" is, but why do you think astrology has those abilities? > > > 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. There is nothing wrong with critiquing scientists for their anthropocentrism, but anthropocentrism is not part of the definition of science, i.e., their job description, with possibly minor exceptions such as anthropology. Your anthropocentrism manifests itself as a confusion between scientists and science. > 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. > > You are confusing the definition of science with the practice. Scientists often engage in all kinds shenanigans, including outright fraud, but shenanigans are rarely part of their job description. A scientist can be solely motivated by monetary payment, and, as an unitentional consequence, benefit all human kind. Anthropocentrism has nothing to do with these cases. Since philosophy students are rarely motivated by pay, maybe, it is you who are projecting your lack of monetary incentive to scientists. And, I point out that a scientist's pay rate is not incorporated into the definition of science. > ... > - 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.
