![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: defining, nature |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
(Mike Helland) wrote in message om... Nature in the dictionary is defined as the material world and its phenomena. [snip a lot of self-indulgent crap, along with a request to do his homework] Nature is the set of all phenomena, a combination of four distinct sets defined by the fundamental forces. The part of this that overlaps with the dicitionary is not yours. The part of this that does not overlap with the dictionary is not correct since it assumes "four forces" (or something like that) as the definition of nature. Even if there are exactly four forces (and we have no reason to expect that is true since we currently know of three, gravity, electro-weak, and strong) it can't be part of the definition. Our definition of nature cannot depend on details such as this, because our understanding of those details could change, could be wrong, or could be hopelessly mistaken for some other reason. The electromagnetic force and the weak force actually are different, they involve different mediating bosons, they work differntly, so we regard them as different defintions. The second part of your objection is merely that the defintion is wrong because we might find out that its wrong. This is of course true for everything said in science. You should try to argue why the defintion is wrong, instead of arguing that it *could* be wrong, which should always be assumed. Our defintions *can* depend on details like this, because if the details change our defintions change. Science is different from religion because new information, or different information is welcomed as it invites us to change our thinking. That you discourage establishing defintions about things that might change is an indication that you fail to grasp the method of critical rationalism. |
| Ads |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Defining nature | Mike Helland | Physics - General Discussion | 6 | August 21st 04 10:49 AM |
| Defining nature | Mike Helland | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | August 20th 04 05:16 PM |
| Defining nature | Mike Helland | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | August 20th 04 05:11 PM |
| Defining nature | Mike Helland | Physics - General Discussion | 1 | August 20th 04 03:16 PM |
| Defining mass algebraically | Donald G. Shead | Physics - General Discussion | 8 | May 20th 04 02:36 PM |