> Do you see that this contradicts your argument? We use Newton's laws
> not because they are the immutable, absolutely correct laws of motion
> but simply because--they work. (Score one for the pragmatists!)
When we're plotting orbits for rockets, yes, we use Newton's laws. When we're studying the whole universe, we use Einstein. You have to recognize, Miles, that science is not a single enterprise, with a single purpose. Pragmatism, unfortunately, is not a fully adequate philosophy of science. I say "unfortunately" because I favor pragmatism myself, but I realize that it isn't a completely satisfactory philosophical position.
> You're not getting it: if you're willing to replace Issac, you must be
> willing to replace Al in the future, and then the stuff you assume is
> an unalterable, immutable law of nature today is in fact contingent
> human knowledge. (If our knowledge and what we call the "laws of
> motion" change over time, how can our understanding at any one point
> in time be considered the complete representation of the patterns
> that exist in the universe? Don't you have any faith in future
> scientists to improve on our current understanding?)
I think you're the one who isn't getting what I'm saying. You are reading all sorts of stuff into what I wrote. The basic principle of any profitable discussion of philosophy is that the participants don't read things into what their partners in the discussion say. Otherwise, it just degenerates into a chaotic mess.
I never said anything about "unalterable, immutable laws of nature," or denied that our knowledge changes. Dammit, do you think I'm an idiot??? What I said was that the solar system, as far as we know, behaved the same way before human beings arrived on earth as it did in Newton's time, or Einstein's time, or now. I think that's a pretty non-controversial statement, and I'd thank you not to try to ridicule me for making it. Obviously, the present behavior of the solar system is not unalterable and immutable, because a collision of another star system with ours, or another galaxy with the Milky Way, or various other catastrophes could change it quite a bit. In fact, it's pretty much a lead-pipe cinch that some day, hopefully in the far distant future, the behavior of the solar system *will* change -- if only because the sun goes nova.
There is a difference, dammit, between our *knowledge* of the laws of nature and the laws of nature themselves. That's a distinction that you seem not to be making. Not too surprising--about 90%, I'd estimate, of discussions of philosophy of science by non-professional philosophers founder on the overlooking of this distinction.
> I agree that change in science is not random and arbitrary, and I don't
> know anyone who makes that argument (straw man?). --I don't see the
> philosophical challenge here: it's progress because scientists discard
> old ideas on the basis of new research, measurement techniques, and
> theories. --If you want to say this progress allows us to more and
> more closely approximate "the way things really are", you're engaging
> in wild speculation: all we have is human understanding, so we cannot
> compare our human understanding to how things really are to
> verify that we're more and more closely matching reality with
> our scientific models. --A pretty obvious Nietzschean point, but
> one I've never heard adequately refuted.
The reason you've never heard it refuted is that you haven't studied much philosophy of science. I dare say that an introductory course in the subject would provide you with a refutation, but the problem is that most people who make confident statements about the subject have never actually studied it, or forgot what they learned as soon as they finished the final exam.
Sorry, have to go and do some bread work now, but I'll continue the thread later if you wish.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ In all ... philosophical studies, the difficulties and disagreements, of which its history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer. -- G. E. Moore