12550
|
If we knew the minute mechanics of hemlock, we could predict that it kills men [Locke]
|
|
Full Idea:
Did we know the mechanical affections of the particles of rhubarb, hemlock, opium and a man, ...we should be able to tell beforehand that rhubarb will purge, hemlock kill, and opium make a man sleep.
|
|
From:
John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.25)
|
|
A reaction:
Locke was adamant that we could never know such things, but I take it that we now do know them, and that this is precisely what science aims at. I'm beginning to think that the entire aim of science is to predict nature.
|
15966
|
Boyle and Locke believed corpuscular structures necessitate their powers of interaction [Locke, by Alexander,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Both Boyle and Locke believe in necessary connections in nature; full knowledge of a corpuscular structure would enable us to deduce, without trial, particular powers of interaction.
|
|
From:
report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 03.3
|
|
A reaction:
I take this view to be correct. Is the necessity analytic, because that is how you define the 'structures'? If not, what is the basis for the claim?
|
15950
|
We will only understand substance when we know the necessary connections between powers and qualities [Locke]
|
|
Full Idea:
Which ever hypothesis be clearest and truest, ...our knowledge concerning corporeal substances, will be very little advanced.. , till we are made see, what qualities and powers of bodies have a necessary connection or repugnancy one with another.
|
|
From:
John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.16)
|
|
A reaction:
A part from the emphasis on powers, this sounds a bit like Armstrong's account, that laws are the necessary connections between properties. It is scientific essentialism because Locke expects researchers to discover this stuff.
|
16558
|
Laws of nature have very little application in biology [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
|
|
Full Idea:
The traditional notion of a law of nature has few, if any, applications in neurobiology or molecular biology.
|
|
From:
Machamer,P/Darden,L/Craver,C (Thinking About Mechanisms [2000], 3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a simple and self-evident fact, and bad news for anyone who want to build their entire ontology around laws of nature. I take such a notion to be fairly empty, except as a convenient heuristic device.
|