Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 304
Natural Laws/NG/Bigelow/Pargetter: fall into two groups:
a) causal laws: they govern forces.
b) non-causal laws: they do not describe relations, but can provide indirect information about forces. Every description of the world imposes restrictions on causal relations.
>Causality, >Causal relation, >Causal laws, >Relations.
I 306
For example: Kepler's laws of planetary motion: they show us which laws cannot be a correct description! They rule out earlier theories.
>Descriptions, >Explanations.
I 307
Conservation Laws/Bigelow/Pargetter: E.g. Law of Inertia: explains how, but not why. Indirect indications of the causes are given. For example, when acceleration is observed. However, it does not explain why a body moves at a constant speed if it is not influenced by forces.
>Conservation laws.
For example, optical laws: provide even less causal information: e.g. Snell's law see >refractive index.
Two materials of different density through which a beam of light moves): the height of a point above the surface is equal to the depth of the corresponding point below the surface, multiplied by a constant. It describes how light behaves, but not why it does so.
I 308
On the other hand:
For example, the law of the least time (> refractive index): between a point above and a point below the entrance area, the light takes the path for which it needs the least time. Assuming that the light moves more slowly in glass than in the air, for example, the light beam takes exactly the same path that Snell's law predicts.
Snell's law is thus subsumed under a more general law. Or it is derived from it.
Explanation: the law of the least time explains more than just refraction, it explains the path. And the law of reflection (entrance angle = exit angle). Does it also explain Snell's law?
I 309
In a sense, yes: it tells us more about the cause of refraction. But still it does not tell us why the light behaves in this way. It seems to explain it when it says that the light takes this path, "so that it" covers the distance in the shortest time. But no one understands that as an indication of a purpose.
>Purposes, >Why-questions.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.