There are many reasons the above physicists argument is made-believe and its by definition right.
Although physics laws are the most exceptionless generalizations in any discipline and one of the most robust explanative systems& epistemic inference tools, some background epistemic realities and reasons make the above physicists claim weak:
** physics deals by definition to a priori generalization-prone phenomena and effects to be scientific all organized i.e "all swans are white, find out why" - it does not by mere power of method try to generalize ungeneralizable or unseptive to generalizations phenomena. That is, it does not find a fair game to its claimed triumphs (physicists claim) but "chooses those battles it can win only"
** cause- effect correlations in physics stem from generalizable effects or data regarding a phenomenon and not in vacuum. Explanations are sought only there where some a priori generalizations theme is evident or profound, thus these always starting with a benefits or head start compared to others disciplines where they are sought in vacuum
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching