On Sep 9, 7:07 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Sadly understanding how to bash a nail, or make pretty pictures on the 'idiot's lantern' hardly begins to scratch the surface of the fundamental nature of the universe - however much you seem to think it does. > > > > > 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? I don't - but minds greater then mine did - that is the point. But if you want to understand the point you will have to read what I said. You seem to have failed to understand what I said. > > > > > > 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.
