Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

Mod Moved Comments To Chat
Clarify the textbook thingy
Source Link
MisterMiyagi
MisterMiyagi
  • 350
  • 1
  • 8

Well, yes of course. If nature has to follow the "laws of nature" that we write down, we could perfectly predict it. By definition.

That doesn’t change that what we call "laws of nature" are models based on observations and thus descriptive. The "laws of nature" are in textbooks because that is where we put our descriptions from observations. Now, there might be some truly fundamental rules that actually govern nature, but all we can do is observe and try to describe them.

Well, yes of course. If nature has to follow the "laws of nature" that we write down, we could perfectly predict it. By definition.

That doesn’t change that what we call "laws of nature" are models based on observations and thus descriptive. Now, there might be some truly fundamental rules that actually govern nature, but all we can do is observe and try to describe them.

Well, yes of course. If nature has to follow the "laws of nature" that we write down, we could perfectly predict it. By definition.

That doesn’t change that what we call "laws of nature" are models based on observations and thus descriptive. The "laws of nature" are in textbooks because that is where we put our descriptions from observations. Now, there might be some truly fundamental rules that actually govern nature, but all we can do is observe and try to describe them.

Source Link
MisterMiyagi
MisterMiyagi
  • 350
  • 1
  • 8

Well, yes of course. If nature has to follow the "laws of nature" that we write down, we could perfectly predict it. By definition.

That doesn’t change that what we call "laws of nature" are models based on observations and thus descriptive. Now, there might be some truly fundamental rules that actually govern nature, but all we can do is observe and try to describe them.