What is a Law of Nature?

We totally can.

No, we don't do that. (If you don't like the story, come up with a better one.)

Stories, myths, fairytales... they're supposed to be about life lessons and how to be a better person.
Something that isn't anything like science at all

we take past observations and make up stories that predict future observations... the stories string together our observations... the stories we make up are not how nature works, they are just what we can say about nature, the stories are approximations.

Maybe so, but this is an example of human frailty, the lack of determination to always follow the data and reject theories that are now contradicted by a lot of the actual data.

The problem is that the actual data does not necessarily contradict the existing data just because it raises new questions.   Biases in interpretation of data apply also.  When something mostly holds together but something new raises questions, it would be absurd to throw out the existing model until we have a more coherent one just because of those questions.

Maybe one should learn a bit about math and physics before hasting to extreme views.

How are my views "extreme"?

No, we don't do that. (If you don't like the story, come up with a better one.)


we take past observations and make up stories that predict future observations... the stories string together our observations... the stories we make up are not how nature works, they are just what we can say about nature, the stories are approximations.

One doesn't have to have a better scientific theory or hypothesis in order to cast aside a broken one. Science doesn't work like that.

The Big Bang theory is broken, so it needs to be discarded. There's simply no good evidence for it.

Is there an alternative explanation? No, but again, science doesn't work like that.

The problem is that the actual data does not necessarily contradict the existing data just because it raises new questions.   Biases in interpretation of data apply also.  When something mostly holds together but something new raises questions, it would be absurd to throw out the existing model until we have a more coherent one just because of those questions.

Unless the existing model, the Big Bang, for example, is something that was falling apart until it was propped up by hypotheses that have no evidence, and whose only purpose for existing is to save it from being cast in the dump of failed theories.

If it weren't depending on some ad-hoc hypotheses, and were merely a particular interpretation of the available data, I'd be more open. But it is unfortunately not...

It really, *really* doesn't help that the Big Bang is based on the work of a Catholic priest whose goal was to create a scientific-sounding equivalent to the creation myth of Genesis. It was not based on science, but on religion. If were based purely on looking at the scientific data, and happened to draw a picture that drew curious parallels with the creation myth of Genesis, I'd be far more forgiving. I would then even interpret it as religion and science discovering the truth through different routes... but it's nothing like that, alas. The religious angle came first, then the "science" was cooked up to dress that in scientificy language. That's what irks me.

While I do believe in intelligent design, and the "laws" of nature being the result of intelligent entity/ies having a hand in creating everything, to try and bring the discussion back on topic, I feel like anything actually science-based needs to properly follow the protocols of being able to be experimented on, and reproduced repeatedly. That, to some degree, cements my idea of a "law" of nature, or rather, a "habit" of nature, as Rupert Sheldrake puts it.

Stability and repeatability.

One doesn't have to have a better scientific theory or hypothesis in order to cast aside a broken one. Science doesn't work like that.

The Big Bang theory is broken, so it needs to be discarded. There's simply no good evidence for it.

Is there an alternative explanation? No, but again, science doesn't work like that.

As you can see from your example, we don't discard stories until we have better ones.

As you can see from your example, we don't discard stories until we have better ones.

The Big Bang must be discarded, though, because it simply doesn't fit the data.

It's just not good science to hold onto broken theories. I'd venture that it's harmful, even.

Indeed, the Big Bang proponents will never let it go, based on the dogmatic belief that nothing can ever be better than it.

And that's why it needs to be discarded ~ so we can start exploring alternatives.

I think that sometimes, you **must** discard a story to be able to find a better one.

If you never let stories go, they never let go, but clutched onto out of fear that they'll be replaced.

That results in stagnation... and the ossifying of science into pseudo-scientific dogma and ideology.

A Church of Science, even ~ Scientism, in other words.

Unless the existing model, the Big Bang, for example, is something that was falling apart until it was propped up by hypotheses that have no evidence, and whose only purpose for existing is to save it from being cast in the dump of failed theories.

If it weren't depending on some ad-hoc hypotheses, and were merely a particular interpretation of the available data, I'd be more open. But it is unfortunately not...

It really, *really* doesn't help that the Big Bang is based on the work of a Catholic priest whose goal was to create a scientific-sounding equivalent to the creation myth of Genesis. It was not based on science, but on religion. If were based purely on looking at the scientific data, and happened to draw a picture that drew curious parallels with the creation myth of Genesis, I'd be far more forgiving. I would then even interpret it as religion and science discovering the truth through different routes... but it's nothing like that, alas. The religious angle came first, then the "science" was cooked up to dress that in scientificy language. That's what irks me.

While I do believe in intelligent design, and the "laws" of nature being the result of intelligent entity/ies having a hand in creating everything, to try and bring the discussion back on topic, I feel like anything actually science-based needs to properly follow the protocols of being able to be experimented on, and reproduced repeatedly. That, to some degree, cements my idea of a "law" of nature, or rather, a "habit" of nature, as Rupert Sheldrake puts it.

Stability and repeatability.

The notion that the natural laws are "habits" of nature seems to me to be incompatible with the notion that based on observation the natural laws were designed by an extreme intelligence or multiple extreme intelligences, since habits are arrived at merely by repetition and resultant ingraining in behavior from some random or indeterminate beginning.

Maybe one should learn a bit about math and physics before hasting to extreme views.

Sorry, but I think that remark is uncalled for. Nobody writing here spells out their credentials (thank goodness), and would those credentials be very illuminating if they did? Brian Josephson has a Nobel prize in physics, you presumably don't, but does that make you any more likely to agree with him?

David

Sorry, but I think that remark is uncalled for. Nobody writing here spells out their credentials (thank goodness), and would those credentials be very illuminating if they did? Brian Josephson has a Nobel prize in physics, you presumably don't, but does that make you any more likely to agree with him?

David

A little bit of humility goes a long way. Mathematics, as a field of study, is built upon axioms, definitions, and logical reasoning. It is a rigorous and systematic approach to understanding patterns, quantities, and structures, and it is not something that can be "broken" in the traditional sense.