On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Jon Johanning wrote:
> 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.
By definition, all we have is our human knowledge of the laws of nature. It's just nonsense to say you know what the laws of nature "themselves" are, unless you're some kind of omniscient God.
> 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.
Enlighten me, professor: I've avidly studied philosophy of science for about 20 years now, and I've never heard a meaningful rebuttal. Lots of ad hominem attacks of Nietzsche and Feyerabend, but nothing more substantial than goofy Dr. Johnson-kicking-a-stone kinda stuff.
(There are compelling philosophical reasons why Wittgenstein rejected the Tractatus and the position you're taking in this thread; from my view, I'd say there are some pretty gaping holes in your own philosophical education!)
Miles