Ed, you might want to begin with an actual science book ...I accept that as a piece of advice. No single text, Harriman's or others, stands alone as some kind of a special gateway to truth. In looking at these laws, I will definitely find other sources -- either corroborative or not.
For instance, the "law of electrolysis" is actually a plural: there are two related laws.Okay, this is a start. Now, I can take this knowledge as a springboard for when I get to that law.
As a question of philosophy, what is the difference between a "law" and a "statement of fact"? The "law" of gaseous diffusion might be an example of an observed fact.Well, I'd say that a law is some kind of invariance or regularity. That's why I said that discovering a law is like discovering a seam in the fabric of reality. The seam may run on for a while. It may run on forever. It certainly runs farther than the concrete situation witnessed by a single researcher. Statements of fact, alternatively, can be very simple and even subjective. The sentence: "I am hungry." is a statement of fact, but you can't get a law from it.
Also, it may be that we still do not have a "full, conceptual understanding of gravity." Einstein might have ...I acknowledge your point about conceptual understanding growing, but I should have been more clear. What I meant to ask is: If you knew the formula for gravity:
F = G [m1 x m2] / r^2
... then would you ever need to witness 2 things dropped at the same time in order to arrive at the law of free fall?
I am not sure how you could gain "a full, conceptual understanding of gravity" without experiencing it. To me, that seems impossible, a rationalist fallacy.Yes, of course. I think you are reading into it a little too much. It's an acceptable fact that before arriving at the law, you would have witnessed free fall. Every human does. But what I was asking is whether you can arrive at the law of free fall without ever witnessing a comparative free fall (2 objects dropped simultaneously).
The inventions come first.I acknowledge that, too. If someone says science doesn't work, then point to the market -- point to smart phones, ultrathin laptops, and that new taser accessory that cops will soon be getting, which takes an HD movie of each taser victim, or the new "Tesla death-ray" type of gun that cops will soon be getting -- which administers shock right through the air (no wires needed).
With your experience and education in health and medicine, are there some other "22 laws"?Great question. I will soon start a new thread on that.
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/21, 6:28pm)