Right, but the general theory of relativity simply moves the question to another location. Now we have space-time curvature, and we don't know what mechanism causes it. Look at Newton's laws; they create a mechanism called "gravity" to explain why objects fall to Earth and the planets revolve around the Sun, but they don't explain what causes gravity. Einstein creates space-time curvature to explain why gravity exists, but he doesn't explain what causes space-time curvature. And so on, and so on. Ultimately, if you dig deep enough, any theory or law simply gives us good curve-fits to observation; the ultimate question of "why" is a bit of a buck-passing exercise.
Indeed. My modern cosmology professor made it clear that science does not answer questions beginning with "why..." :)
Every law comes with the theory implicitly attached that it will actually work for predicting future events. A theory, on the other hand, can be based on a set of observations for which no law applies (yet).
Ah, I see; that's the part I have trouble with.
Both laws and theories are capable of making predictions, but a law is just a prediction of what will happen (i.e. organisms will evolve), while a theory explains the mechanisms behind that process (i.e. organisms will evolve based on natural selection). My two examples would constitute a law of evolution and a theory of evolution.
I guess what I'm trying to say is more rhetorical/definitive. Every theory must have the same capabilities as a law, but not every law must have the same capabilities of a theory. Does that make sense?
We have a similar clause in Canada. It's called the "notwithstanding" clause (as in "notwithstanding that which is important to maintain local cultural identity"), and it allows provinces to arbitrarily disregard constitutional rights and freedoms if they think their cultural uniqueness is threatened (see Quebec's insane language laws, designed to prevent the adoption of non-French languages).
Wow, that's worse than what we have down here. Your clause
explicitly states that civil liberties and federal mandates are
subordinate to "cultural identity"!
The line between "power to the people" and "tyranny of the majority" has been crossed.
I'm sure certain people would accuse you and I of being the "tyrannical minority." :)
I fail to see where Dr. Berger's article on madsci (or the McComus article which he reprints on his website) is "splitting hairs," considering that the articles in question are in regards to the philosophy of science. In the madsci article he specifically states that the distinction between law and theory generally is little-contemplated in practice, something I've generally found true in my studies - since laws and theories are both predictors, it makes little sense to the student to be overly discriminatory between the two unless you need to know the difference on an exam.
There
is a difference. A law does not even make an attempt to explain mechanisms behind a process. As Mike said, it's more of a buck-passing exercise, but a theory actually
tells us more than a law does. You could very easily make a law of evolution, because we
know that all species will evolve (that's the law), but we also know the mechanism driving that evolution (natural selection). In some senses, theories are more comprehensive than laws. It is
not a trivial distinction.
Tyranny at the state or local level can be escaped fairly easily by moving to another state.
Telling people to move away from their homes in order to evade state-sponsored persecution is a completely unacceptable solution. It's the
state with the problem, not the person, therefore, the state needs to change. See Alabama, which banned interracial marriages until 1999.
This was also another idea the Founders had. Tyranny at the federal level is much harder to escape. Closer federal-level scrutiny of state government legislation most likely will lead to federal tyranny; one thing that history has shown is that increased centralization does not lead to more liberty for the people.
Yes, but regional tyranny is far easier to
implement. History has shown that increased centralization
in a tyrannical government has led to less liberty. There is no historical precedent for a federal democracy.
Also, you are operating under the very false assumption that more federal law is the key to making ignorant inbred racist donkey-fuckers change their minds.
Who cares whether they change their minds? I only care that they don't enact bigoted, stupid laws, so yes, the federal government would be a good means to that end.
