Quote:
Originally Posted by porphy
If a natural law, formulated by science, is conditional in the way Aramike describes, that is saying. When ever the law doesn't apply to observations, changing conditions will explain this. (if not some other kind of error is found). Even history is called in to maintain this view, and the question is if there is, so far any example that contradicts this formulation.
This sounds, in itself, very much like a law like prediction based on observation and induction to me.
|
Whats more, it is a tautology, as you say Popper may have pointed out,
as there is no possible falsification if any data that does not follow the law
can be explained by Aramike as a change in conditions.
Quote:
|
...Letum will maintain that you can't formulate laws based on empirical results and induction.
|
You are right about induction, but I do think you can base laws on empirical
results, provided that you have an infinite amount of results from every
possible time.
However, with a little Cartesian doubt, I don't think we can collect any results, let alone an
infinite set, but that's a whole new kettle of fish.