This means one has to believe in physical science Laws first and then and only will he be able to see the events. But this takes away or diminishes the scientific "discovery and data-based inference instead of faith" doctrine. Opponents of this interpretation will say confirmation of Laws still is an argument of no faith-based inference, but the priority of belief in law remains a claim weakening the argument.
The only commonly stated repurcussion is that paterns (of events) slone do not consist a plausible causal chain and that a underlying theory, under which a law is associates, with explanotary Reductions must be present.
But I think his important remark has not been exhausted in terms of consequences, almost half a century later.
Instead of starting with problematic epistemological considerations consider some well established common beliefs.
I learnt language and the relationship, the order, the taxonomy of things from my parents and teachers, as did they. If we look back over the generations, the millennia, the eons, we can envision the slow but inevitable (since it exists) evolution, growth if you like, of knowledge, of consciousness of awareness, into the world picture which avails us today. It appears from looking at the development of such things as science and Laws in the form of declaratory statements opined by individuals we need to keep separate the difference between what an individual learns, how and from where they learn it, against what the species has traditionally accepted as Law, science or what have you and how the species came by such knowledge (obviously it follows, from the opinions of individuals).
As for Realism, in light of the above, what immutability, what priority, should we construct our sanctions and privileges on if not some faith-based inference?
Realist philosopher R. Bhaskar's claim that there are no events before a law is asserted and that events are only perceived after they happen is a key aspect of his theory of scientific realism, which is known as critical realism. This claim has several important implications for how we understand scientific explanation, the nature of reality, and the relationship between perception and knowledge.
These implications of Bhaskar's claim are not without controversy and have been subject to critiques and criticisms. Some argue that this claim fails to account for the fact that some events can be observed independently of any theoretical frameworks and that it can lead to a relativistic understanding of science and reality.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus