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.

[ankh156.livejournal.com]

You can't really hold language to fault because it's capable of referring to, or even describing non-existent entities. Where would human life and imagination be without unicorns, mermaids, or even 'the furthest star' ? Following Kant somewhat, I'm inclined to believe in two basic criteria of 'truthiness'. Correspeondence and coherence. Correspondence is 'a posteriori' and wholly dependent on the evidence of our senses. The other is mathematical or logical coherence and usually ends up indication an equivalence, or even better a tautology. Taken in their pure and extreme forms neither is particularly useful or significant. 'Protocol statements' (as the logical positivists liked to call them) are bare statements of perceived affairs, and are close to meaningless if they are not situated in a collectively recognisable context, or if they are not part for some identifiable programme of observation. Equally, logical statements of equivalence (eg : 2+2=4 - which establishes an equivalence of the terms on each side of the "= sign") don't tend to be too illuminating either. Where most of human discourse, knowledge and deduction take place is between the extremes, and utilising varying admixtures of the two criteria - hence the thorniness of knowledge and truth. Usually we need both prongs of "Humes Fork" (the a prioi and the a posteriori) to have anything understandable, expressible and worth knowing.

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'.