Hello Steven,

I expect, wouldn't be surprised if, there are "absolutes" in the Universe.
I just think it is presumptuous of humans to believe we have found
"absolutes".  We have a long historical record of having to revise, add to,
or otherwise come to some new understanding of the "laws" our ancestors
thought of as "absolutes".  And, I think that thinking "working hypothesis"
helps to encourage continuing investigation of old truths.

Somebody said something like: "The differences in knowledge between the most
intelligent human and the least intelligent is insignificant in context of
the differences between what we know and that which we know not."

Imho.

Sincerely,

Ray
--------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Query of the day?


> Ray,
> do you think gravity is a "working hypothesis?" or Planck's constant, or.
.
> .well, I could go on. Do you *really* think there aren't any absolutes in
> the Universe?
> Steven
>
> But the proper response to this hypothesis
> is that there are always people willing to
> believe anything, however implausible, merely
> in order to be contrary.
>                              Vikram Seth
>                              A Suitable Boy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:48 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Query of the day?
>
>
> Hello folks,
>
> This is a very profound question, imho.
>
> I am hesitant to accept the *apparent* absolutness of "scientific law".
> Personally, I prefer the notion of "working hypothesis", meaning that in
our
> present understanding of the "real" world the tested hypothesis (law)
seems
> to work so far as we are presently capable of understanding the "real"
> world.  For example, to what extent are we confident that the application
of
> what we call "laws" do not have unintended consequences that may require
> some modification.  Imho, "laws" is too strong a term - implying
> absoluteness of right thinking - for us to accept without much scepticism.
>
> I believe that we are still in the learning phase.
> ---------------
>
> Steven, you said in part:
>
> > Probably the best way is to use the scientific method as a means to tell
> the
> > differences. The scientific method begins with observation and
description
> > of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. This is data collection.
Following
> > that you is the formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
In
> > physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> > mathematical relation. You then use the hypothesis to predict the
> existence
> > of other phenomena, or to predict the results of new observations. This
is
> > usually the stage at which there are experimental tests of predictions
> > generated by the hypothesis. The experimental tests are usually carried
> out
> > by several independent experimenters. If the experiments fail to falsify
> the
>
> Ray here:
> In my view, maybe wrong or irrelevant, is that when we decide that there
is
> a phenomenon to observe & describe, we already have injected our own
> individual "bias" or world view into the question.  ***That is not bad***.
> In fact, I believe that it is the particular bias of an individual -
> Einstein, eg. - that leads us to new perceptions and potentially new
> formulations of hypotheses.
>
> I am trying to say that our own whole prior experience directs our
thinking
> into particular avenues of thought/investigation.  It is that
individuation
> of thought  (by the Einsteins of this world) that leads to unconvential
ways
> of thinking about the "reality" of which we are a part and thus to new
ways,
> better formulations of "reality", of the "laws" that we have accepted in
the
> past.
> --------------
>
> Steven:
> > hypothesis and tend to support it, the hypothesis may come to be
regarded
> as
> > a theory or law The difference between a law and a theory is that in a
> > theory there is always the possibility that it will be disproved or
> > falsified. A theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have
been
> > repeatedly confirmed by experiments. A law tends to be those big things
of
> > science, like gravity or such which are generally regarded as fact, and
> > cannot be disproved or falsified. In some fields, Biology for example,
> there
> > aren't any real laws per se. Three that sort of qualify are DNA/RNA as a
> > means of information transfer, ATP as an energy source, and Evolution
> > through Natural Selection. Even those are probably not really laws in
the
> > sense of Planck's Constant or some mathematical laws.
> >
>
> Ray here:
> For me, mathematics is an extremely strong set of "working hypotheses",
> perhaps the strongest because they result from a long history of logical
> testing among the cognoscenti but I am not ready to accord them the status
> of "laws".  If I understand properly, mathematics is constructed almost
> wholly in the human mind based on certain defined rules of logic.
>
> However, I certainly concur in your comments following.
>
> Ray
> ---------------
> Steven:
> > One of the problems is that common usage of theory has come to mean a
> "fuzzy
> > idea" or "pipe dream." You often hear, for example "Evolution is just a
> > theory!." The term theory should, properly, be reserved to mean those
> issues
> > of science which are very nearly fact or law, but which still have the
> > potential of being disproved or falsified.
> >
> > Well, that's how I learnt it in the late Pleistocene.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > But the proper response to this hypothesis
> > is that there are always people willing to
> > believe anything, however implausible, merely
> > in order to be contrary.
> >                              Vikram Seth
> >                              A Suitable Boy
> >