This post-modernist muddy thinking has pretty much run
its course and is almost completely discredited by the
scientific community. Look up "post-modernism" vis-a-vis
the "ontology of science", but for Pete's sake, use
a creditable source. And make it current.
>that is, we observe the behaviour of
>various things in nature, and extrapolate "laws"
>therefrom. the problem, of course, is that we can
>never know for sure what all of these "laws" are,
Keep in mind the context of the scientific process itself:
it makes no claims regarding /explaining/ reality, it
simply attempts to /describe/ it. The metaphysical relevance
regarding what science describes is totally up to you.
>and the situation is further complicated by the
>contextual relevance of the "laws" we've formulated.
>Newtonian physics explains a whole lot of behaviour,
>but look a bit closer and Einsteinian physics does
>a better job. but both are, at best, context-sensitive
>approximations of the true behaviour of nature.
I agree with this, in essence. However, the context of the
original assertion /precludes/ quantum effects vis-a-vis "looking
closer" (or the relativistic effects looking farther).
>so your statement could better be phrased as,
>"because it goes against the laws of physics as
>many of us currently understand them, it is
>unlikely to be correct."
>
>---corey
More post-modernist fuzzy logic.
If you apply the (very important) principle of "context" which
you mentioned above, then likelihood has nothing to do with it. If the
postulate is _framed_within_the_context_of_Newtonian_Mechanics_
(i.e. non-quantum and non-cosmological scales), then the postulate is
either utterly correct and concise within its own proffered /context/,
or it is utterly incorrect or inconcise. Newtonian Mechanics describes
fundamental physical /relationships/ that, within the aforementioned
context, are /inviolate/. They are not "approximations" when applied
in context (i.e. when used in the appropriate circumstances). For example,
NASA still uses Newtonian Mechanics when planning and controlling
spacecraft trajectories. Within that context (the description of the
motion of bodies to, say, 16 decimal places) allows them to predict the
size of the target area of the spacecraft to within 16 decimal places
(say, a window with a radius of 120km). Any alternate postulate or law,
that embodies as its /implicit context/, the same predictive quality as
Newtonian Mechanics regarding the motion of bodies, but dictates a target
/outside/ the one predicted by NASA, would be /demonstrably/ false.
Utterly and completely. No ifs, ands, buts, or likelihoods.
The "it" in the phrase:
>"because it goes against the laws of physics as
>many of us currently understand them, it is
>unlikely to be correct."
refers to a postulate which bears an /implicit context/ (i.e. physical
scale: non-quantum/non-relativistic) that is shared by Newtonian
Mechanics, and therefore is falsifiable (or verifiable) by Newtonian
Mechanics, which in turn is /independently verifiable/ within its
own prescribed context, through empirical study.
But don't take my word for it. Drop an apple on your head, instead.
Dan