The principle that every body in motion or at rest remains in motion or at rest until acted upon by another body is a natural law. This natural law was modified by the discovery that there is no absolute rest ("ether"), that all speeds are relative speeds. And the natural law that the speed of light is x,and that the speed of light is the same for all observers. E = MC squared is also natural law.
The main problem with science is not "scientism" , but that science has been put to creating the most horrific weapons, W'sMD. That's not beautiful. So, the knowledge of nuclear energy has been abused from the standpoint of the best interest of most people. Similarly, with global heating, the discoveries of ,what, organic chemistry, the chemistry of the carbon atom raise questions about the continuing use-value of fossil fuels
Charles
^^^^^^^
ravi gadfly Now my question(s):
Can you or someone:
a) Define "truth"? In such a way that it can be used in common
reasoning? (this rules out, I think, such things as the deflationary
theory, while leaving intact correspondence theories... you may
consider this arguable, and I am willing to pursue that debate if
necessary -- in fact it seems to me scientism requires a sort of
deflationary approach/faith in science).
b) Can you then show me that this truth is not relative but objective or
at least universal? Not in terms of particulars but in universal
scope?
c) How do you define "superior"? Do you really think that astronomy is
superior to astrology (for explaining the nature of the universe) in
every sense? How do you expect to demonstrate that conclusively?
d) What does superiority have to do with truth? Ptolemaic system of
planetary motion were probably superior to whatever it replaced. Does
that make it "true"? Is Reimann geometry true?
e) What is meant by "validity" (of science)? Valid in what sense? In
representing "truth"? In being "superior"? Or just in the mundane
sense of being more reliable than a few other systems?
f) Can you define "science"?
g) When we abandon one system of explanation for another because the
latter is more parsimonious or more elegant (easier to work with,
etc), is this because the latter is more "true"? Or is it just a
matter of "taste? (a preference for parsimony, elegance, etc).
Thank you for any light you can throw on this. My tone is not intended to be combative but at worst defensive (since I do believe that the tolerance that defines a [true] progressive is a good thing; and does not *necessarily* lead to the gas chambers as bogeyman arguments attempt to show).
--ravi