Template:M intro design Nomological machine: Difference between revisions

A rolling ball with no force upon it will eventually stop. This is, so the theory goes, only because of the corruptions of reality. So too, a [[crisp packet|crisp packet blowing this way and that across St. Mark’s square]]. Once you have discounted all the contaminating effects of the real world; the friction, convection, dust, drafts and so on — all of which are subject to their own equally scientific, equally certain laws, just in this case uncalculated — it still does, we ''assume'' obey scientific canon — but good luck proving it. For every lunar module, crisp packet, or every rolling ball, ''for every mass that ever accelerates in our imperfect human world'', we give our models the benefit of a large and practically untestable doubt. We assume that observed divergence is purely a function of lack of data and calculating wherewithal.

Are we justified in extrapolating laws that hold for nomological machines to the real world? Do these imaginary regularity generators ''really'' tell us how wind-blown crisp packets, or any of the other myriad quotidian physical effects we see and take for granted every day, behave? Is this a ''conjuring'' trick? To find out, read Cartwright’s book. It is called, {{br|How the Laws of Physics Lie}}.

Now: there are theory-based models of life — nomological machines — and life-based models of theory — for a laugh, let’s call these ''analogical machines'' — in which we force real life artefacts into generating theoretical result — coins and dice to generate randomised outcomes — and it is important not t to confuse them.