On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote:
>> In science we deduce and derive the laws and theory of how things work. > > So, if you, RH, can't even understand the argumment, it must be wrong? First off, the laws in question are not deduced. If you can't make it to step 1, the other steps will be harder.
Davies appears to be saying that science is founded on faith just like religion is founded on faith. What am I missing here?
"Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.?
That isn?t faith. It is just the way things are. We don?t need ?faith? to accept the way things are. You need faith to accept the way things aren?t.
I see an author confusing contexts. And I am not the only one.
And what do you mean ?The laws in question are not deduced?? I assume we are talking about the physical laws of nature here. How exactly then do we get them? Angels?
> >> I say ?pulls a fast one? because I spend a lot of time researching language and its relationship to context (my AI interests). > > That's very funny. You've gotten quite a bit of flack on this board for your idiosyncratic usage of words. Perhaps it comes from being artificially intelligent.
Everyone that practices formal thinking exercises uses words in this manner. It?s what polysemy is. It is what it is for. Why are you still crying about it? You should spend that energy understanding that process instead of crying about it. You yourself recognized that we have ontological limits here. This is how your overcome those limits. Wipe those tears away and buck up.