Frederick KOH

When I say this: an example of a non-sequitur is this:

There is no scientific theory that does that!

I am beginning to think that I will have to use the same reasoning as the proverbial judge who had to rule on what pornography is.

Thank you for bringing this up. This is because you seem to want to define your way out of any counter-argument. How else do I pin down what you mean ...

And in the four laws I gave an example where what the material constituents were is not clear. Especially when we know the classical theory that came ...

What use is a theory, autonomous or not, it it does not come with means to connect it to experiments. Those concepts and setups exist prior to and mot...

There is something wrong when a specific question is asked and generalities are proffered in response. Especially when we know exactly what happened t...

But also a sense which does not include instruments and experimental set up in a theory meant to be empirical.

The gish gallop was from you. From your own switch from "autonomous theories" to "autonomous laws", deftly, and with wiliness, hoping no one would not...

In what sense is QCD autonomous? The data that theorists sought to explain and whose work resulted in QCD were created by instruments designed on prin...

When the discussion touched chemistry, you used the term "autonomous law" instead of "autonomous theory". Suppose this question was asked in 1835: Are...

Could be more than two - depending on how you use your terminology. I have two sets of questions in this regard. I have put them in different comments...

It means that "fundamental" theories have two means of being "transported" from their original birthplace to other areas of inquiry.

I was making a claim about areas of inquiry. We saw a stark example with a simple statement about acids.

This means that areas of inquiry with autonomous theories are not themselves autonomous. Given a question, explanations do not have to stay within a t...

Do you find the abandonment of vitalism in the life sciences equally unwarranted?

Nothing wrong with that. That's how hypotheses are formulated sometimes. You don't need the word irresistible to qualify the evidence you use to form ...

He is more equivocal: " Sometimes things can be explained by studying their constituents—sometimes not." pg 111 Facing Up Later: Reductionism may or m...

What does it mean for an explanation to be complete? We are talking about science are we not?

My point was that you can occasionally go sideways and still converge.

So what is the term you would use when the question "why do elements have the valencies they do" is answered by a theory of quantum mechanics?

Converge.

But if it can straddle multiple autonomous laws, why not also admit the objects of the theories of physics?

So do you agree with this Valid claims and questions can be made within chemistry that straddles multiple autonomous laws.

A sentence like this is perfectly valid in chemistry: "An acid is a molecule or ion capable of donating a hydron (proton or hydrogen ion H+), or, alte...

There is a also a level of porosity between "laws" not found in theories in physics. For example (from Wikipedia) "An acid is a molecule or ion capabl...

But surely you recognize that the situation in chemistry is very different. There is no specific law of chemistry with the reach and scope of QED. How...

Then I am not sure how to use your terminology here. What are what you call "high level structures" then? Are they logically different for each specif...

Do you consider chemistry autonomous from the theories in quantum mechanics?

So there is a directionality between the two, leaving aside what to conclude from this directionality.

Example "why is the photon massless" is question expressible in terms of QED

In every theory there are open problems describable in terms of the theory itself. Does this apply to what you call autonomous theories?

Let's get one thing straight first. While EWT is a theory for energies above 246 GeV, it is also for energies below that. In other words it is not ill...

Yes. Because what you say is a bit unexpected. You define an equivalence class in terms of an existing theory. You do not define it in terms of a set ...

So this is the criteria for being in the same equivalence class as QED: This is not more accurate, but characterizes what valid empirical theories sho...

I found this worth exploring further: I made this remark in a later comment that I hope you don't disagree with: But you disagree with this remark of ...

So there is empirical data that QED consistent with. Electroweak theory is also consistent with the same empirical data. Is there anything you disagre...

Since it is an empirical theory, what experimental data is it consistent with?

In plainer words, the theory of the electoweak interaction gives the correct results for experimental data at 246 GeV unificaton energy whereas quantu...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say all theories (QED included) would have been consistent with experimental results at the lower energy scale

While underdetermination is well known enough in the philosophy of science, could you give a central text which uses the term underspecified.

So you consider all these autonomous high level theories. In the case of quantum electrodynamics, electroweak theory is not a reduction, "since those ...

Then are these autonomous high level theories empirical theories?

A further point of clarification. You to refer to "relevant equivalence class" because a single high level theory may have instantiations with differe...

Does Weinberg give similar caveats for his version what a fundamental theory is?

So attempting to synthesize your position: while "those higher-level laws are completely insensitive to any other low level features of material const...

Sartre actually.

Does Weinberg give similar caveats for his version what a fundamental theory is?

Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. Nothing matters.

In that case, that's quite an anti-climax. Engineers create structures like this all the time. Engineers who make parts and components at one level ar...