In Reply to: Try this on for size! posted by FairyTale on June 6, 2003 at 05:12:26:
"7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong."
There goes Einstein's general theory of relativity. Since the observations were explained by a new "law" I now know it is almost certainly wrong.Sarcasm aside, the concept that we know the "laws of nature" is bogus. Newton's "laws of motion" are in actuality "theories of motion" and subject to modification like all theories in science. Only God knows the laws of nature, man has theories about what they are, to an approximation as best we can.
This list is interesting only in that it is useful in raising a flag where something might be bogus, but as Clark's article shows, the attitude is often taken to an extremist position. Many people take this list as all the reasons to discredit an idea outright without having to test it. I think the "skeptic" view is an overreaction to all the very far out supernatural ideas brought out there in common "New Age" thinking. It gets to the point where so many self-professed "skeptics" aren't skeptical at all, they are true believers of just about anything opposite of the "New Age" thinkers, whereas a true skeptic is someone not believing anything as gospel until proven definitively one way or the other. A true skeptic would be open-minded, in my way of thinking, and would tend to discard only the most unreasonable claims (and of course all that is very ill defined what is "most unreasonable").
I like to consider myself a true skeptic. Or just call me an agnostic. Or maybe I am cynical of any kind of extreme pronouncements of truth because there's just too many know-it-alls.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Try this on for size! - kurt s 08:43:14 06/06/03 (15)
- Distinction between theorem and law - andy_c 23:53:19 06/07/03 (4)
- Re: Distinction between theorem and law - Dan Banquer 13:48:37 06/09/03 (0)
- Re: Distinction between theorem and law - kurt s 20:34:10 06/08/03 (1)
- Glad you brought up the point about nonlinearity... - Leisure7 14:06:30 06/09/03 (0)
- Why do you assume intelligence? - Leisure7 13:01:01 06/08/03 (0)
- Errr . . . - Pat D 18:53:35 06/06/03 (3)
- Re: Errr . . . - kurt s 20:31:52 06/06/03 (2)
- Re: Errr . . . - Pat D 07:25:43 06/07/03 (1)
- Re: Errr . . . - kurt s 10:09:31 06/07/03 (0)
- Nicely said. Hope that jittery-coffee guy notices. - clarkjohnsen 13:28:12 06/06/03 (1)
- Re: Nicely said. Hope that jittery-coffee guy notices. - Jitter_by_Coffee 14:01:01 06/07/03 (0)
- Re: Try this on for size! - john curl 10:04:59 06/06/03 (3)
- Re: Try this on for size! - mfc 21:43:16 06/06/03 (1)
- Good questions - Leisure7 16:35:02 06/07/03 (0)
- Other Topic - GD - TommyK 20:05:08 06/06/03 (0)