4 ms·

The assumption of uniform laws is used when evaluating how evidence confirms or rejects a theory. The assumption of uniform physical laws is used when theories

The assumption of uniform laws is used when evaluating how evidence confirms or rejects a theory. The assumption of uniform physical laws is used when theories are compared to see which is the best explanation for the evidence. > The idea, for example, that physical constants change over time is very much a hypothesis that is given serious consideration. It just turns out that there's no evidence for it. In fact the hypothesis that the speed of light changes over time is a component of several heterodox physical theories that have appeared over the years. Whether or not there is evidence for a theory depends entirely on the assumptions used when attempting to explain a phenomenon.

lisper 6y ago
> the hypothesis that the speed of light changes over time is a component of several heterodox physical theories that have appeared over the years All of which have been rejected for being poor explanations. > Whether or not there is evidence for a theory depends entirely on the assumptions used when attempting to explain a phenomenon. That depends on what you mean by "assumptions". Yes, all evidence has to be evaluated against a background theory. That does not mean that the background theory has to be taken as an axiom. The background theory that there is an objective reality governed by laws that are invariant with time and space is not an axiom, it is a hypothesis that has emerged over literally centuries of work as the best current explanation for all the observed data. It is open to question, but if you want to question it you'd better have some damned good evidence.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > The background theory that there is an objective reality governed by laws that are invariant with time and space is not an axiom, it is a hypothesis No, those are the axioms that we use to construct a theory. > best current explanation what is "best" is judged according to our fundamental axioms. given different axioms, another theory would be seen as best. > It is open to question, but if you want to question it you'd better have some damned good evidence. certainly, but given different fundamental axioms the same evidence leads to a different theory.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > No, those are the axioms that we use to construct a theory. No, they aren't. > what is "best" is judged according to our fundamental axioms No, it is judged by the community of people who engage in the scientific enterprise. > given different fundamental axioms the same evidence leads to a different theory That is certainly true. From different assumptions, different conclusions follow. But the existence of an objective reality is not an axiom, at least not a scientific one. It is an explanation for the observed fact that science is possible in the first place. It is an explanation of the observed fact that there are things that nearly all humans agree on, e.g. the fact that there appear to be lights in the sky, the fact that everyone more or less agrees what the repertoire of lights is (one very bright one, one not-so-bright-one, and lots and lots of much dimmer ones), and that they move with enough regularity that their future positions can be predicted with astonishing accuracy. No axioms are required to make these observations, nor to come up with the explanation that the reason that everyone agrees on all these things is that there are, in point of actual fact, sources of light out there in some objective physical reality.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > No, they aren't. Scientists disagree with you. > No, it is judged by the community of people who engage in the scientific enterprise. That community of people judge theories using the aforementioned axioms. > No axioms are required to make these observations, nor to come up with the explanation that the reason that everyone agrees on all these things is that there are, in point of actual fact, sources of light out there in some objective physical reality. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that observations are theory-laden.
      - lisper 6y ago
        Theory-laden != axiom-laden. Theories are not axioms.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        right, axioms are logically antecedent to theory.

lisper 6y ago

> the hypothesis that the speed of light changes over time is a component of several heterodox physical theories that have appeared over the years All of which have been rejected for being poor explanations. > Whether or not there is evidence for a theory depends entirely on the assumptions used when attempting to explain a phenomenon. That depends on what you mean by "assumptions". Yes, all evidence has to be evaluated against a background theory. That does not mean that the background theory has to be taken as an axiom. The background theory that there is an objective reality governed by laws that are invariant with time and space is not an axiom, it is a hypothesis that has emerged over literally centuries of work as the best current explanation for all the observed data. It is open to question, but if you want to question it you'd better have some damned good evidence.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The background theory that there is an objective reality governed by laws that are invariant with time and space is not an axiom, it is a hypothesis No, those are the axioms that we use to construct a theory. > best current explanation what is "best" is judged according to our fundamental axioms. given different axioms, another theory would be seen as best. > It is open to question, but if you want to question it you'd better have some damned good evidence. certainly, but given different fundamental axioms the same evidence leads to a different theory.
- lisper 6y ago
  > No, those are the axioms that we use to construct a theory. No, they aren't. > what is "best" is judged according to our fundamental axioms No, it is judged by the community of people who engage in the scientific enterprise. > given different fundamental axioms the same evidence leads to a different theory That is certainly true. From different assumptions, different conclusions follow. But the existence of an objective reality is not an axiom, at least not a scientific one. It is an explanation for the observed fact that science is possible in the first place. It is an explanation of the observed fact that there are things that nearly all humans agree on, e.g. the fact that there appear to be lights in the sky, the fact that everyone more or less agrees what the repertoire of lights is (one very bright one, one not-so-bright-one, and lots and lots of much dimmer ones), and that they move with enough regularity that their future positions can be predicted with astonishing accuracy. No axioms are required to make these observations, nor to come up with the explanation that the reason that everyone agrees on all these things is that there are, in point of actual fact, sources of light out there in some objective physical reality.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > No, they aren't. Scientists disagree with you. > No, it is judged by the community of people who engage in the scientific enterprise. That community of people judge theories using the aforementioned axioms. > No axioms are required to make these observations, nor to come up with the explanation that the reason that everyone agrees on all these things is that there are, in point of actual fact, sources of light out there in some objective physical reality. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that observations are theory-laden.
    - lisper 6y ago
      Theory-laden != axiom-laden. Theories are not axioms.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        right, axioms are logically antecedent to theory.