File spoon-archives/seminar-14.archive/marx-bhaskar_2001/seminar-14.0102, message 24


From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC <MikalacNS-AT-navsea.navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Actually it's potential
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:28:01 -0500


maybe some definitions are in order because i'm having trouble accepting
some statements below.

"Bhaskar argues that laws are the tendencies that reside in objects."

take, for example, the Law of Gravitation:

F = G*M1*M2/d^2, i.e., the force between two objects is proportional to
their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between them. (G is the proportionality constant, the "gravitational
constant".)

the "law", in this case, does not reside in the objects (M1 and M2), but
rather outside them (the gravitational field, another hypothesis).  the L of
G shows the tendency of an EVENT (force of attraction at some time) between
2 objects.

IOW, i prefer to say that laws are more or less probable tendencies for
events to occur among objects.  (i'll leave it to more subtle minds to
define "event".)

agreed, we do not experience any laws, but rather their effects (falling
toward the earth, in the case of the L of G).  agreed, the laws exist
outside of human existence.  however, they are not readily discernable, so
it happens that homo sapiens sapiens has a brain sufficient to inference
SOME laws with SOME credibility (in the case of gravity, on the sense
evidence of objects falling toward the earth).

i suppose it's conventional to call physical laws, "laws", although it has
to be understood that these laws are really probable hypotheses or theories
subject to change as all scientists will admit.  hence, the above
gravitational "law" discovered by Newton, was superseded by the more general
Einstein's General Theory of gravitation which replaced it.

in the social sciences, "laws" are much less readily discernable by human
brains because of the complexity of human behaviors over time not subject to
experimental control.  hence, the interminable debates over the causes
(motivation) of individual and group human behavior.  want to call these
human behavior "laws"?  maybe better to refer to them as debatable theories
and hypotheses.  maybe there are no human behavior laws except to ideologues
who can pull out of complex human history the particular facts that support
their "theory".  

norm
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hall [mailto:gregoryjayhall-AT-hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:17 PM
To: seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Actually it's potential


Viren asks:

>Would Bhaskar say that we experience laws? Does the scientist >experience a

>law when he is doing an experiment?

I would say no we do not experience laws directly.  Bhaskar argues that laws

are the tendencies that reside in objects.  They are mere potentialities.  
We only experience events that are the actualizations of these tendencies.  
It is the inability to observe the laws directly that forces the scientist 
to construct the experiment to try to get the laws to actualize in a way 
that the scientist can understand and then use them.  Hence, during the 
experiment the scientist is not experiencing the law itself.  Rather, the 
scientist is experiencing the actaulization of the laws in a controlled and 
artificial environment that makes the functions of the laws more apparent.

If this is true, as long as something exists even if humans do not exist, 
then there would still be scientific laws.  These laws would reside in 
whatever exists and govern its behavior.

P.S. Why is there something rather than nothing?

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



     --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005