mark robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > Are you saying that most science does not recognize "laws" of > nature; or just you? I'm not sure saying gravity is a law gives > it too much ontology. "Law" in this sense only means universally > applicable. And absolutely nothing can be proved absolutely, but > we're pretty gosh-darned sure gravity exists. > > How about this? Not all natural phenomena are natural laws, but > all natural laws are natural phenomena. The two are not mutually > exclusive.
science is about falsifiablity, ie theories that stand until knocked over. this happens rather often. its wrong to claim that gravity is a law. gravity, ie the maths that represent the phenomena is a theory. since our view of the universe is rather small bordering on zero, the theory may fall over under different circumstances. what some people call laws of science are still only theories. what you refering to is the consistency of natural phenomena which leads us to presume law status on them. it is a common human mistake the label for the phenomena it is labeling. in this case the motion of objects relative to a large body and a "law" called gravity. Vic ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
