Thoughts for the day (i)

[unixronin]

Science is an exacting, meticulous process of continuously discovering that most of what we think we know about the universe is wrong, discarding it, and replacing it with something incrementally closer to the truth as measured by how much of the universe it manages to successfully and self-consistently explain.

Comments

Re: (part 1)

[yndy.livejournal.com]

See, I think we're arguing at different points here. You use words like "cheat" - which implies an initial belief that the law is valid, but there might be a way around it.

I brought up the example to point out that starting out from the point that your mental perception is "well that can't be done" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Do I think Newton's Laws will "be broken"? Not by anyone who perceives them as laws. Do I believe they are what's the word you used "unassailable"? No. My own life-experience has shown me otherwise... it's a locked entry, but I'll link it for you so you know part of why I'm saying what I am http://yndy.livejournal.com/610339.html

The whole point of what I am replying with is that one's ontology forms not just one's perceptions of the universe, but one's ability to perceive differently.

Examining the language is crucial.
Law (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law)

a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.

"invariable" and "rule" are both inflexible terms.

Here's a different example that may illustrate what I'm trying to point out to you about your ontological map of the universe. Go look up the verb "sex" in any dictionary. Usually you'll get rerouted to sexual intercourse or coitus... despite the fact that recent years have seen a movement toward non-gender specific sex, the entries still show "esp. between a man and a woman" or "esp. inserting penis into a vagina". For literally decades (centuries?) anything that didn't include one of each gender was not defined as sex. So what exactly were gay men and lesbians engaging in?

How we as a society perceive words (no, not the individual 'well I define it thusly even tho that's not it's accepted definition' argument) limits us in how we perceive the universe - and also limits us into areas of inquiry.

"But why would we doubt that? No one has ever found a way around it...yet"