Saturday, December 1, 2007
Law and Order
Is the world we live in one of chaos or oder? A cursory glance of the world around us would certainly point to the conclusion that it is one of order. What I mean by order would be better defined by uniformity, consistency, and predictability. In short does this world and universe function in a way that we can know how it will function in the next moment. Will the sun come up in the east? Will water always run downhill? There are laws that govern and determine the way the world works. These laws are knowable and testable. This realm of inquiry is known as natural law. This is were one branch of science comes into play; it is an endeavor to know and understand the way the world works. It is a descriptive enterprise, it describes for us how things work. So a ordered universe would be necessary for any scientific endeavor because if the way things worked changed; a description would be impossible. Now I'm not arguing that things don't change, they most certainly do. What I'm saying is that their are laws which govern our world that don't change. Water runs downhill in China, just like it does in the USA. These laws apply to all people, in all places, at all times. It is what we call natural law or the way things work. Now any reasonable person wouldn't disagree with this because it is easily verifiable. Natural law is very important to know because it ensures our survival. For example; ignorance of the law of gravity can be very costly. Now I have given this subject a very brief overview, their certainly is a lot more that could be said about natural law. My point of this brief look at natural law is to make an observation. When it comes to natural law, there is no disagreement as to it existence, nor would any reasonable person argue that these laws are the product of the human mind or culture. Natural law is independent of the human experience. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a noise. It might even be said that these laws are forced upon us and inescapable. We have to order our lives around them and yes we have learned to override certain laws with others. Aerodynamics can override gravity. But we are still governed by them. In this realm of natural law we have no trouble making judgments and saying this is true and that is false. We can do research and say this theory is right and that one is wrong. We do this all the time and often times without thinking, in fact we would be dead if we didn't. In the physical realm; to make judgments, to speak of right and wrong and claim true or false is common language that no reasonable person disagrees with. But something funny and inconsistent happens when we shift into the realm of metaphysics. All of sudden everything goes out the window. I think this has to do with the shift in focus, we are no longer talking about out there, but in there. We are talking about ourselves. It gets personal. For example take the works of Aristotle and Plato on logic; were they describing something that existed independent of themselves or were they defining something they made up? Is it a law that describes the metaphysical world and the way it works? The rub comes because these laws are inescapable and they govern the way we work, they are imposed on us. Some would like to throw out these laws when they bump up against them or it contradicts a treasured view of theirs. The way I see it is that metaphysical laws can be a little deceptive, we can break them without any apparent consequence, or can we? So we tend to think they are optional or even non existent. Some might even think they are in flux, always changing and evolving. In a sense we can ignore them when we want and use them when we want. Natural law is a lot more rigid, break one and pay immediately. Stand in front of a speeding semi and deny the law of inertia. You can't deny natural law you have to order your life in light of it. It is really hard to see natural law as optional, in flux or even non existent. In my next post I will explore this a little further. So my closing question for today is; why do you think we acknowledge natural law and dismiss metaphysical laws?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Is the world we live in a
world of chaos or order?"
This question assumes that it cannot be both. Perhaps you are addicted to "or" logic. :-)
"I reject the postmodern notion that truth is not knowable."
For many, who say they "know the truth", what they really mean is that they are certain, fully aware, and no longer curious. Even more frighteningly they often feel fit to teach. A
common practice of people that think like that is that they are always trying to inform others, as if they understood things they do not. They want to be regarded as superior, they want to be worshiped, they sow seeds of idolatry. Truth is relative to what you are seeking. If you seek to be admired, there are some rather disturbing truths you can
"know" that will make that goal easier for you to acheive. If you seek to be WORTHY of admiration, there are beautiful truths that can make the strenuous effort it takes seem worthwhile. To say you can be "aware of truths" makes sense to me, but red flags fly up if you say "I know THE truth."
"Nor would any reasonable person argue that these laws are the product of the human mind or culture."
I would however argue that the descriptions of them are. And how wrong we have often been in our descriptions! How many times have we been compelled to change or
replace these descriptions based on new observations?!
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a noise."
Perhaps a tree falling in the forest, with or without someone around MAKES no noise. Perhaps it was the fungus that weakened the tree or the wind that blew it, or the sun that warmed the cool air, that we should blame for MAKING what we call noise.
"In this realm of natural law we have no trouble making judgments and saying this is true and that is false."
Is that so? Interesting opinion!
"we can do research and say this theory is right and that one is wrong."
Again this hints that you cling
to absolute "or" logic rather strongly. We can observe evidence that convinces us to use, modify or abandon a theory. Our best scientists are aware that no amount of experimentation can ever prove a theory right, yet a single experiment will prove it wrong.
"We do this all the time and often times without thinking,"
Can't disagree with that...Perhaps too much without thinking.
"to speak of right and wrong and claim true or false is common language that no reasonable person disagrees with."
How then could these theories you speak of ever be challenged?
"were they describing something that existed independent of themselves, or were they defining something they made up?"
Again you assume that one answer (that has truth to it)precludes another answer from being truthful.
"Some might even think that they are in flux, always changing and evolving."
I tend to believe that there ARE unchanging principles. Our descriptions of them are in some cases still developing, in other
cases (where perhaps we shouldn't) we have our minds made up already.
"Why do you think we acknowledge natural law and dismiss
metaphysical laws?" This assumes that WE agree with the premise of the question. Obviously it it because the principles of what you call "natural law" are more readily tested (and results agreed upon) in front of witnesses. Much of what I hear you say translates: "All reasonable people cannot help but agree with me."
Thanks for the comment enjoyed the challenges and observations.
Several thoughts that come to mind, I could be mistaken but it appears you commit the fallacy of equivocation. Go back through what you said and see if you can spot it :)
And you also appear to be doing what you think it is wrong for me to do. And if it is as you say, then why is it ok for you? You certainly claim to "know the Truth" about these things. If you believe what you say, then say so and don't condemn others if they believe what they say. ;) Just try to persuade them that your view is correct. And I'm not persuaded ;)
In regards the addiction to "or" logic. Any sane person wouldn't deny the law of non-contradiction, to do so would be to embrace irrationality. something I'm not willing to do.
Also, I don't claim to have certainty, that would require perfect knowledge, which I don't posses. But I'm convinced that some things can be known beyond a reasonable doubt, and it appears you do to. :)
Another thought,
Just because some people have ill motives, wanting to feel superior, wanting to be worshiped, seeking admiration, etc etc. It doesn't logical follow that all people are like this, nor does it mean this is my motivation. You will have to establish this point, not just assert it to convince me that it is true.
Also I hope you don't mean that all teachers in universities and public schools are like this and I don't think you would argue that some people aren't truly smarter than others. I'm sure that there are things you know, that I don't. To say no one is smarter than anyone else; we have nothing to learn and nothing to teach would be an indefensible position, so I think your opening objection fails in convincing me of it's truthfulness.
There are lots of things we know to be true, our whole lives are built on things we know to be true. So knowing things doesn't necessarily make me the kind of person you assert I am here, because if it did then you would be subject to your claim. Then your claim becomes self refuting.
But notice that you are attacking knowledge, the very branch you are sitting on.
Just read back through my post, and I noticed something, you actually verified for me the claim I was making about the metaphysical laws of logic.
You dismiss them and ignore them without any apparent result, leading to your conclusion that the really don't exist.
Thank you for making my case, I'll have to finish my thought on this soon.
"And you also appear to be doing what you think it is wrong for me to do."
What is it you think I am saying it is wrong to do? One thing I do think is wrong to do is to pretend that we understand someting we do not, then begin teaching others with that pretended understanding. I made no claims that all people do this. I do assert that a great many preachers are dishonest about where their understanding ends. If they were honest about it they would be on a level with the people who now look up to them as teachers.
If I am guilty of equivocation, that is OK. we are not in a logical argument we are just contrasting opinions. Logical argument is not likely here as I doubt we could agree on terms.
"If you believe what you say, then say so and don't condemn others if they believe what they say. ;) Just try to persuade them that your view is correct. And I'm not persuaded ;)"
Did you feel like I was condemning you? I offered my contrasting opinion, which is based on belief, not a claim of knowledge. If you say you are not persuaded I am curious to hear you articulate what it is you think I was trying to persuade you of...
"In regards the addiction to "or" logic. Any sane person wouldn't deny the law of non-contradiction, to do so would be to embrace irrationality. something I'm not willing to do."
To deny the "Law of non-contradiction" and to criticize it's applicability to various propositional statements is not embracing irrrationality. For example if I were to say that a tree is either alive or dead, that presumes it must be one or the other and cannot be both. It is correct (IMO)to understand that portions of the tree are dead and portions are alive.
"I don't think you would argue that some people aren't truly smarter than others."
I would take issue with the way smarter is often percieved to mean superior. Just because one person is aware of something someone else is not, that doesn't mean they are fundamentally superior which is what many people mean when they say smarter.
"There are lots of things we know to be true, our whole lives are built on things we know to be true."
Again I take issue with your terms. I think we believe things to be true. Sometimes our beliefs are correct and sometimes not. When we "build" structures based on false beliefs that is called idolatry.
"But notice that you are attacking knowledge, the very branch you are sitting on."
I am attacking the many times "overly certain" aspects of what we call knowledge. Science is guilty of this, and so are various popular religious faiths. This is my opinion.
"You dismiss them and ignore them without any apparent result, leading to your conclusion that the really don't exist."
Where do you get the idea that I think they don't exist?
Post a Comment