Quote:
|
Someone help me out here....Hume...anyone?
|
I don't see anyone coming to your rescue because the concept of a scientific law is very simplistic in its definition.
Quote:
Ok Aramike, you think that "what goes up, must come down" is a law because
it has always happened in the past, but how does your past observation tell
you about what will happen in the future?
|
The past observation tells me that an object will always "come down" because the THEORIES predicting the occurence also agree. Should this change, than the conditions will also have changed, rendering the law irrelevent.
But seriously, are you trying to postulate the "what comes up must come down" may actually just suddenly change? If so, the concept is no more sophisticated than a simple "God-done-it". If the law were to change, than the facts that were the basis of the law will have changed as well, thusly rendering the law invalid.
The LAW is CONDITIONAL - all things being exactly as they are now, what goes up must come down. Should that change, the conditions must also change. This is the key to the rules to logic (something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time).
Think about it: should the law in question change, would it be smart to simply say "just because" or rather to look into WHY it changed, thereby changing the conditions.
Futhermore, you have yet to show a single law that has mysteriously just changed because "goddidit" rather than having its conditions redefined.
I posit that you're fighting a losing battle, versus both semantics and the scientific method, because you're too stubborn to acknowledge what is fact. All things being equal, you'll continue to do so. Should you change your perspective, a condition will have changed rendering that law irrelevent.
Although that law may be short term, it will be 100% (as such be a law) as your position will not change unless some other condition forces it to.3
To simplify it further (which I don't believe I should have to do as I believe that you're intentionally dodging the logic), let's say that using my legs and feet in a certain matter over a specific terrain in certain conditions causes me to walk. We'll call it the Law of Walking. Should my using the same appendages in the same manner result in a different result, would not the conditions have changed, meaning the Walking Law is irrelevent?
This is a question of semantics and logic. If we were to throw those out in favor of a "we never know anything" philosophy, why not just abandon science altogether?
There's a reason renowned scientists worldwide (smarter than both you and I) use scientific terminology precisely along with the scientific method.