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
-
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
“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 -
Replying to @harmonylion1 @vgr and
That’s cute, but ontologically incoherent. Reality decides, in every moment, what subsequent state of reality is “invented” The laws of physics aren’t immutable, but that doesn’t make them contingent. As formula: “Time is real. The present is contingent. Causation is fundamental”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reading Rovelli’s Time Out of Order, I’m now persuaded time isn’t real.
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.