What Are the True Laws of Physics and Their Role in Understanding Nature?

[brainstorm]

Relational Frame Theory is a good example and I have already provided a link. As I have also already indicated in the above post, I prefer to use the commonly used definitions of words whenever reasonable.

How do you distinguish this approach as scientific instead of merely sounding scientific because it's written in a scientific way?

 

[wuliheron]

How do you distinguish this approach as scientific instead of merely sounding scientific because it's written in a scientific way?

A) It is a recognized academic philosophy with a well established history.

B) A psychology based on the philosophy has been clinically tested, therefore there some empirical evidence to support the philosophy.

I'm not saying this is a well established science or that there are not competing theories, just that there are scientific approaches to linguistic analysis and this is one. Contextualism in general is interesting in that it resolves many of the classic paradoxes of philosophy that seem to defy common sense, while providing means for empirically testing its assertions.

 

[wuliheron]

Dear argumentibles,

Are any of you aware that the designation "Law of Physics" is an historical artifact?

This turn of phrase has been passed down to us from an era when Newtonian physics was king, Newton was long dead, and the community of physics had nothing to do but refine the immutable F=ma while dusting and cleaning the pedestal upon which they had placed Newton's image.

(And if anyone wonders if my response is in anyway an insult or belittlement of the genius of Newton, it is not.)

That is what contextualism asserts, that words like "laws" change meaning according to the context. This can also include such things as the psychological state of the individual using the word and who is speaking. For example, words like "I" are called indexicals because their meaning changes according to who is using them.

 

[brainstorm]

A) It is a recognized academic philosophy with a well established history.

Does academic recognition automatically equal scientific rigor? Remember Galileo had to fight against academic authority to establish scientific rigor, and he eventually gave up and renounced his views under persecution.

B) A psychology based on the philosophy has been clinically tested, therefore there some empirical evidence to support the philosophy.

What was tested exactly and how?

I'm not saying this is a well established science or that there are not competing theories, just that there are scientific approaches to linguistic analysis and this is one. Contextualism in general is interesting in that it resolves many of the classic paradoxes of philosophy that seem to defy common sense, while providing means for empirically testing its assertions.

I'm sorry but I think the interpretation of meaning in language is called hermeneutics and it is not a science. Etymology is the most valuable to me because it refers to longer-term meanings of roots whereas contextual definitions allow for popular culture to spin meanings this way and that. Just because a trend occurs to shift the meaning of a word doesn't mean that trend should define that word for future usage.

 

[nismaratwork]

Does academic recognition automatically equal scientific rigor? Remember Galileo had to fight against academic authority to establish scientific rigor, and he eventually gave up and renounced his views under persecution.

Actually, he had to fight against opression by the church, and gave up under threat of death or other harsh punishments.

What was tested exactly and how?



I'm sorry but I think the interpretation of meaning in language is called hermeneutics and it is not a science. Etymology is the most valuable to me because it refers to longer-term meanings of roots whereas contextual definitions allow for popular culture to spin meanings this way and that. Just because a trend occurs to shift the meaning of a word doesn't mean that trend should define that word for future usage.

Here I agree... definitely NOT a science... this is an art at best.

 

[wuliheron]

Does academic recognition automatically equal scientific rigor? Remember Galileo had to fight against academic authority to establish scientific rigor, and he eventually gave up and renounced his views under persecution.

What was tested exactly and how?

I'm sorry but I think the interpretation of meaning in language is called hermeneutics and it is not a science. Etymology is the most valuable to me because it refers to longer-term meanings of roots whereas contextual definitions allow for popular culture to spin meanings this way and that. Just because a trend occurs to shift the meaning of a word doesn't mean that trend should define that word for future usage.

So feisty.

Herneneutics is focused solely on the interpreation of language, here's a quote from wikipedia:

Most forms of contextualism, including social constructionism, dramaturgy, hermeneutics, and narrative approaches, are instances of descriptive contextualism...

Functional contextualists, on the other hand, seek to predict and influence events using empirically based concepts and rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_contextualism

I mention it's established academic credentials as merely a kind of "character reference" for the non-trivial and self-consistent nature of Functionalism. For more information on the empirical evidence I suggest you check out their webpage on the subject:

http://contextualpsychology.org/state_of_the_act_evidence

 

[Phrak]

Well, it may be an assault to those "dusting and cleaning".

It is an assault. Was the entirety of the physics community not able to see a single soft spot in their comfortable castle? The theoretical science of physics lives in confusion and misdirection punctuated on rare occasion by rare insight, whereupon the confusion and helter skelter sets-in again, as it is today and has been for some 80 years. On the other hand, the same harsh judgment of experimental physics cannot be made, having made immense strides in this same period of time.

I see it over and over again on this forum, where warn-out theory, falling apart in every portion, is taken taken as holy law, smugly cited and harshly defended.

There were really not many fundamental contradictions (I actually know of none) with observation at the time because we couldn't see on the quantum or relativistic scale.

Also, I hope your'e not ignoring the intermediate studies of electromagnetism and thermodynamics that really lead, unavoidably, to relativity and quantum both.

Once you know Newton's three laws, everything isn't all the sudden solved either. We're still solving many classical problems today.

 

[nismaratwork]

It is an assault. Was the entirety of the physics community not able to see a single soft spot in their comfortable castle? The theoretical science of physics lives in confusion and misdirection punctuated on rare occasion by rare insight, whereupon the confusion and helter skelter sets-in again, as it is today and has been for some 80 years. On the other hand, the same harsh judgment of experimental physics cannot be made, having made immense strides in this same period of time.

I see it over and over again on this forum, where warn-out theory, falling apart in every portion, is taken taken as holy law, smugly cited and harshly defended.

I do believe that you're selling theory short: in the absence of explanations for what experimentalists find the results of those experiments are often dismissed. Paul Dirac and contemporaries are a fine example of theoreticians who worked hand-in-hand with experimentalists to forward the agenda of BOTH.

Now, like it or not, we're at a point where experiment is most likely in the service of confirming theory, or opening new theoretical avenues. We're not going to be directly probing the Planck scale, so without the work of theoreticians, "helter skelter" as it sometimes is, Physics would be stagnant. I'm not dismissing experiment, anymore than String Theorists do, despite their sometimes disturbing faith in their theory. Rather, I think your grasp on the history and role of theory in the last 80 years is incomplete and biased.