I’d argue the reverse. We restrict the range of civilizational activity to make more predictable phenomena more normal. Both math and science would be less useful in the wild. Civilization creates math/science unreasonable effectiveness bubbles.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Physical laws are causation wrapped in math. But causation is the real nut. Why and how does one state of the world constrain other possible states. The nomological order of reality is a puzzle itself. Khun/Feyerabend are too cute by half. Laws are real because causation is real.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Admittedly, I come to this through physics and philosophy, with some behavioral economics/public policy/economics excursions, so the applications of these thoughts are not much more beyond metaphor, but analogically, there is nothing incoherent about social scientific laws per se
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Nancy Cartwright has argued that there are no fundamental laws as such. Only phenomenological/ constitutive
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
“All laws are contingent” is probably my minimalist Hume++ epistemology.
But inventions can be absolute.
Therefore engineers are higher status than mathematicians or scientists.
QED
This is Rao’s law and theorem

-
-
“Laws are contingent, inventions are absolute” is a great argument for asking “how can we do x” by default rather than “can we do x”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.