The Laws of Science (feat. Tony Reed) - Creation Today Claims

    47 Comments and 74 replies
  • zune153
    zune153 It is a treat to have Tony and Paul doing a collaboration.
  • Josh Stein
    Josh Stein This is a pretty good summary of empiricist anti-realism about laws, though it is useful to be a bit more circumspect about the disagreement over claims re: the status of laws. e.g. Is p a law if no exceptions have been observed? Or is it a low only if it meets the stronger condition that there actually are no exceptions? (This matters for talking about whether or not claims in some scientific domains, e.g. classical mechanics, count as laws.) This isn't to say that anything you're saying is false here; I think it is all right on the money, but bound to a more general theoretical position that is somewhat controversial... actually more controversial among many atheists who hold a pretty thoroughgoing realist view of laws.
    • Paulogia
      Paulogia I don't get a vote, but I wish that things like "Moore's Law" wouldn't be given the word law, or that it would be used outside of the purely observational sphere. But my bias is not wanting to give anti-science people more ammunition.
    • Josh Stein
      Josh Stein I always try to make the point to people that the conventions around "law" aren't as rigid as folks often suggest. After all, surely no one thinks of Godwin's Law in those terms. I'm sympathetic, as I get cranky about atheist uses of "laws of logic" as though they're not system-relative entities.
  • Glaucon
    Glaucon 3:54 "What the Hovinds?!" that could be a YEC exclamation...

    Scientifically literate person: "Actually the earth is billions of years old and you need only look at the trees and skies to see this. Maybe instead of trying to force design into these things, you could actually study trees older than you believe the universe is."
    Young earth creationist: "What the Hovinds?!"
    lol
  • Al Mustapha Al Shahid
    Al Mustapha Al Shahid Tony, great to see you here.
    Awesome job Paul.
  • Daniel F.
    Daniel F. 3:45 GIven how much Eric parrots his dad's examples and jokes, Kent Hovind is the perfect example of one kind giving birth to a different kind.
  • 6.626x10Pow-34
    6.626x10Pow-34 I would like to push back on this one. There is a legitimate question in philosophy as to why the cosmos has predictable order. It's just that apologists don't seam to understand there own argument well engulf to express it.
    A "law giver" doesn't provide an answer. A god would require the same question to be asked about it. If you answer that question with something like "god doesn't need an explanation" then you can apply this answer to the cosmos as well.
    • Tony Reed
      Tony Reed Planck's Constant, That is a legitimate concern. If creationists wan't an answer to that question, they should ask instead of asserting an answer.
  • tapionisapsyduck
    tapionisapsyduck Hey it's Tony!
  • Lady D
    Lady D Yay Paulogia!
    Thanks for sharing, as always!
  • Learjet66
    Learjet66 Paulogia and Tony Reed, my two favourite youtube guys in one place. Awesome!
    • subductionzone
      subductionzone Two of my favorites together. Thanks for the excellent video!
    arrow_drop_up