A pointer to an explanation we could all use from time to time

[johnny9fingers]

bord_du_rasoir  posted this link on politicartoons  which I thought I should share with folk as it is both lucid and elegant. It gives us a clear idea of the difference between a law of nature and a theory.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

For the full context of the debate and explanation it's here:

http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/2188731.html

Which starts off with a crack at Christine O'Donnell (admittedly a bit like shooting fish in a barrel) and proceeds from there.

Comments

Re: A bit of logic and philosophy of science.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with your conclusion at all, but if I err, I err on the side of correspondence, because in my perception language tends to decohere: hence (I think) paradox, or meaninglessness.

I have been of the opinion that the observable and measurable set the boundaries of any coherence we can deduce: excepting perhaps in systems which are completely abstract, and which bear little or no relation to the measurable. In the world which is all that is the case, I think the 'why' must agree with 'best possible evidence' rather than making the evidence conform to the 'why'.