"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

On what basis does science have to support its claim that it knows how
to predict future events of the natural realm under certain
circumstances?

If an astrophysicist claims that he or she knows that a newly
discovered comet is going to hit the earth in 2.6 years in Paris,
France and that the entire city needs to be evacuated before that
happens, on what basis does he or she justify that claim to that
knowledge? On what basis would the people of Paris, France want him or
her justify that claim to that knowledge?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

Similarly, if an astrophysicist claims that a given rocket system and
payload is going to take X number of days to get to Mars at a certain
time of year Y, on what basis do the people who have a direct interest
in this claim want that astrophysicist to justify that claim?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:


The answer in both cases is "Laws of Physics" which are no more than
experimentally corroberated guesses. The history of physics is replete
with broken "laws".

Bob Kolker

Patrick Reany:
[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

Maybe it was the magna carta.

On what basis does science have to support its claim that it knows how
to predict future events of the natural realm under certain
circumstances?

High tech ouija boards.

If an astrophysicist claims that he or she knows that a newly
discovered comet is going to hit the earth in 2.6 years in Paris,
France and that the entire city needs to be evacuated before that
happens, on what basis does he or she justify that claim to that
knowledge? On what basis would the people of Paris, France want him or
her justify that claim to that knowledge?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

I'd say (3), but perhaps mitigated by (1), to be on the safe side.

Similarly, if an astrophysicist claims that a given rocket system and
payload is going to take X number of days to get to Mars at a certain
time of year Y, on what basis do the people who have a direct interest
in this claim want that astrophysicist to justify that claim?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

Am I on this rocket, or is this purely hypothetical?

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of applicability then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.


On what basis does science have to support its claim that it knows how
to predict future events of the natural realm under certain
circumstances?


Experimental evidence supporting the theories used to make the prediction.


If an astrophysicist claims that he or she knows that a newly
discovered comet is going to hit the earth in 2.6 years in Paris,
France and that the entire city needs to be evacuated before that
happens, on what basis does he or she justify that claim to that
knowledge?

How well the theories that prediction is made with is in accord with
experiment.

On what basis would the people of Paris, France want him or
her justify that claim to that knowledge?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics


None of the above. On the basis of how well the theory that predicts it is
in accord with experiment.


Similarly, if an astrophysicist claims that a given rocket system and
payload is going to take X number of days to get to Mars at a certain
time of year Y, on what basis do the people who have a direct interest
in this claim want that astrophysicist to justify that claim?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

See above.

Thanks
Bill

In article , "Bill Hobba" writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of applicability then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable". It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable". It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Which is why I suggested Newton's three crumpets of motion.

Bob Kolker

In article ihQtc.10239$eY2.3045@attbi_s02, "Robert J. Kolker" writes:


wrote:

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable". It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Which is why I suggested Newton's three crumpets of motion.

Yep, I noticed. Illustrates the issue quite nicely.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days
of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the
nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind
of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from
Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the
roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is
bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any
technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of applicability
then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called
into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable".

In science it does not mean immutable because you have studied science and
know what it means in that context. But from a dictionary - 'Something,
such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority' or
from the same dictionary regarding scientific laws: 'A statement describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all
cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity' It is
obvious the person who wrote that definition does not understand science
which of course Mati does. Take another example from the same dictionary -
'The science and study of law; jurisprudence' - man made laws a science?
The point of what I said above it to bring into focus the way the word law
is used in the English language and even defined in dictionaries is not
quite the way it is used in science. That being the case we either have two
choices - make it clear what it means or do not use it. I prefer the second
approach.

It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Correct - it is only a label. But the use of that label and its meaning in
other contexts can engender confusion in those who do not know what is meant
eg the person that defined its scientific use in the dictionary. The
discussion is downright silly because you and I know what it means. It is
not downright silly in the context of refuting anal retentives like Patrick
Reany who harp on about it.


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Thanks
Bill

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

On what basis does science have to support its claim that it knows how
to predict future events of the natural realm under certain
circumstances?

If an astrophysicist claims that he or she knows that a newly
discovered comet is going to hit the earth in 2.6 years in Paris,
France and that the entire city needs to be evacuated before that
happens, on what basis does he or she justify that claim to that
knowledge? On what basis would the people of Paris, France want him or
her justify that claim to that knowledge?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

Similarly, if an astrophysicist claims that a given rocket system and
payload is going to take X number of days to get to Mars at a certain
time of year Y, on what basis do the people who have a direct interest
in this claim want that astrophysicist to justify that claim?

1) Gut feeling
2) rules of thumb
3) fortune cookie
4) astrology
5) the laws of physics

Patrick

Except for the demand that Paris be evacuated, that having
only political justification, a warning of impending disaster is
justified by "the laws of physics". [Old Man]

In article , "Bill Hobba" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr. Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early days
of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the
nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a kind
of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from
Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the
roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is
bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any
technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of applicability
then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called
into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable".

In science it does not mean immutable because you have studied science and
know what it means in that context. But from a dictionary - 'Something,
such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority' or
from the same dictionary regarding scientific laws: 'A statement describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all
cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity' It is
obvious the person who wrote that definition does not understand science
which of course Mati does.

Well, that dictionary writers often don't understand science, that's
not news. Thus, people who want to know the meaning of a scientific
term should look up in science literature, not general dictionary.
Same as people who want to understand the meaning of a medical term,
should look up in a medical dictionary.

Further more, even if we are talking about common language, not
scientific usage, people (at least those who listen to the news and/or
read newspapers) realize well that laws are being made, modified,
amended or nullified daily. thus, nothing "immutable" about them.

Take another example from the same dictionary -
'The science and study of law; jurisprudence' - man made laws a science?
The point of what I said above it to bring into focus the way the word law
is used in the English language and even defined in dictionaries is not
quite the way it is used in science.

Yeah. And the way the word "mill" is used in machine shops in not
quite the way it is used among the general public. The word "cut"
when uttered by a movie director means something quite different than
same word when uttered by a surgeon. And "head" means something quite
different to a sailor than to a landlubber. Heck, *within* science
the word "vector" carries quite different meaning to a biologist than
to a physicist. So? Over time any profession or activity generates
its own jargon which may include words which are only used within said
activity and are meaningless to outsiders, as well as words which
exist in the common language but which are used within said activity
with different meaning. Nothing new about it. And if and when a
"laymen" wants to understand the language of said activity, it is his
business to ask and learn it, not to tell the people using it what it
should mean.

That being the case we either have two
choices - make it clear what it means or do not use it. I prefer the second
approach.

I totally, absolutely and irrevocably reject the second approach. It
amounts to giving the Patrick Reany's of the world a veto power over
how others use their language.

It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Correct - it is only a label. But the use of that label and its meaning in
other contexts can engender confusion in those who do not know what is meant
eg the person that defined its scientific use in the dictionary.

I repeat, it is the business of the laymen attempting to understand
the language of a given profession, to ask questions. The fact that
there are some who're incapable of learning is their problem, not
everybody else's.

The discussion is downright silly because you and I know what it means.
It is not downright silly in the context of refuting anal retentives
like Patrick Reany who harp on about it.

Aha. so, therefore, you suggest giving in to anal retentives like
Patrick Reany and changing your language to their liking. Not a good idea.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"