Quote:The "laws" of nature are just regularities. They're not axiomatic.
And to say something happened that is inconsistent with 'regularities' (in this case constants) is to say that something was inconsistent with our background knowledge. Not a good start...
Quote: As soon as something happens different, we have to go back and reevaluate, that's the nature of science.
So you should rightly confirm the hypothesis that people can rise from the dead before you let it inform your world-view should you not?
Quote: They're a summation of observation. Most of the stances here, while touting openness of opinions/ ideology, hold a stance where it is improbable to observe anything immaterial.
To directly observe it, that's true by definition, but to observe the effects of an immaterial thing that has a causal relationship with physical reality is by no means off-limits. An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance.
Quote: The notion of "law" falsely implies necessity and lends credence to a, IMO, skewed view of reality in some.
Actually, the physical laws (constants) are necessarily true but we are not necessarily correct in declaring something constant. If say alpha (the electroweak force) is not actually constant then it is not actually a law, but all laws that are valid are still necessarily true, at the very least in relation to all other laws like f=G(m^1 m^2)/r^2, each of these values necessarily has the same relationship with the other values, even if G changes.
Quote: A whole new undiscovered mechanism is what Science is about! What should be considered as a natural law is anything wrapped up in time. It's a table of consistent observations over time . 1000 years ago science was far different than today, and 100 years from now people will probably be laughing at how trivially we thought now. Just my opinion.
Science is about a methodology for approaching reality and nothing more, they won't laugh at our tentative conclusions because their application of the model will be the same and if they consider the same data we have it is highly likely they will get the same result, the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method.
We don't laugh at Galileo or Capernicus being wrong about many astronomical events, because the underline methodology would yield the same result if we used the data they had available.
And there are many more reasons for considering a phenomenon to be constant other than "we measured it 1000 times and it's the same". I could take 1000 measurements of the colour of my house, for instance, that does not necessarily make it green.
.
