Before asking what it is to be a law of nature, you would do best to consider the nature of law.
In any event, it seems to be yet another subject area permeated by the confusions of language. In such cases it is a good idea to look at the common language, so here is an answer from my COED:
[b]law[/b]
noun
…
3 a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
Are there “Laws of Nature”? Or does shit just happen?
Read the four questions?
Read about the various approaches? I don’t see a “shit just happen” approach, maybe that’s a new and intellectually stimulating way of looking at it?
I see you edited a smidgen of your rudeness out - progress I suppose.
Why don’t you post some examples of what you consider to be “natural laws” - 4 or 5 in simple English - and then we’ll see if any civil debate is possible?
I think wiki has a good summary of many of the laws of science. But these are approximations (as argued here Laws of Nature | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
If you look at the OP (and took the time to read it), you will see a link to a good article that discusses the main issues.
Laws of Nature
Of particular interest is the two main views with regards to laws of nature:
Regularity vs Necessitarianism
So perhaps the discussion can move towards these two options and people’s views with regards to these two. The article is obviously eschewed towards regularity and I think it is the better option of the two so far. But I still have to read more about the topic to fully grasp everything and I can’t be sure which of these is the correct or better view. Perhaps people can give constructive and positive input with regards to these two options.
You are pestering me via private message on MyBB to respond here. Oy Vey! Anyway…
I admit to having had to skim a bit, as my time she are short. So let’s try the infamous “point form”.
There is a big hoo-hah on the one site you mentioned about distinguishing between “Laws of Nature” and “Laws of Science”, with the statement that “Laws of Science … – with few exceptions – are inaccurate, are at best approximations of the truth, and are of limited range of application.” I’d like to know which academic disciplines are capable of better statements of these “Laws of Nature” than the sciences?
That article then goes on to mention “electrons will bear the electrical charge -1.6 x 10-19 Coulombs because there is a Law of Nature to that effect”. I dunno who worked out that charge if it wasn’t the scientists. Maybe Plato saw it in his world of forms.
So the “Laws of Nature” are supposed to be different to the “Laws of Science”, but the beeg example looks like an example of a “Law of Science” if you ask me.
So ARE there such Laws ( whichever of the two types you choose )? Are there laws that “are true for every time and every place in the universe”? On this very forum there is a topic “Protons 4% Smaller than Previously Measured”, implying a possible variability of size that would create “issues” for many established scientific/natural laws. On MyBB PeterCH posted about “Fine Structure Constant may not be Constant”.
So what “Laws” are there that are true “for every time and every place in the universe”? True in the first bazillionth of a second of ze beeg bang, true in black holes, true near absolute zero temperature, true of quarks and of galaxies, and so on? And can we know, given that current science is questioning matters that have been regarded as pretty solid up to now?
Or is induction never going to get us there, as we are so limited in what we can “see” of the universe, of space, of time?
So, personally, I’d say it looks like there are probably no absolute “Laws” of nature or science, only statements of regularities within limited frames of reference. But then, I don’t claim to be a scientist.
EDIT EDIT! PS. Other than that futhermucker of all Laws of Nature - “Shit Happens”.
“Laws” are human constructs used in an attempt to create a useful/understandable structure: nature doesn’t create laws and neither does science: man does; e.g. the Law of Gravity is not a law but a force described by man as a’law’.
You either did not read what I posted, or you did not comprehend what I said. I can write it for you, but I can’t understand it for you. The answers to both of your previous posts are contained in what I posted.
Aw, I missed it, my bad. You believe there are no laws of science as well as no laws of nature. “Only statements of regularities within limited frames of reference.”
No laws of science, or physical laws or laws of nature.
Fair enough.
As I said earlier “Before asking what it is to be a law of nature, you would do best to consider the nature of law.”
If you wish to define the term “law” in this context as “true for every time and every place in the universe”, as per the link you yourself provided, then you are right - no “laws”. You really should check out the space-sea otherside the remote Rwenzori-554 galaxy, my man - really weird shit happens there.
If you wish to define “laws” as “statements of (statistical) regularities within limited frames of reference” then yes - there are such.
