[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

Ah, argument by thanks. I see.

Oh, no, seriously? You think I made an "argument by thanks," as opposed to just a (partial) joke? (I certainly would worry if peacegirl thanked me). No, I made an argument to the effect that what you claimed Swartz said, is not what he said, and I presented you with a link to his own work -- not very long -- to show you what he did say. It doesn't even come close to what you claimed he said. That's the argument -- but I see you have no actual interest in discussing this incredibly interesting topic, but merely in making lazy and ill-informed comments. What a surprise on the Internet!

We get to choose law of nature and there are infinitely many of them. That's pretty silly.

Congratulations on another display of intellectual laziness and general assholery. What don't you read this to try to understand what he is talking about: the difference between a necessitarian account of the laws of nature, and the neo-Humnean or regularity account of them. He subscribes to the latter.

You know, you're awfully dismissive of a guy, Swartz, who holds a B.A. in physics from Harvard University, and an M.A. and a P.h.D. in the history and philosophy of science, and who moreover taught philosophy for years at Simon Fraser University, a highly rated liberal arts college. This is not an appeal to credentials -- I'm not saying what he says must be right because of his credentials. I'm saying it must be awfully strange to suppose that someone with this background would believe, for example, that we can jump to the moon if we want -- which is what you claimed he said.

But, again, if you don't actually want to discuss this topic, why not leave the thread for those that do? Of course you can do as you wish; but if you shit up the thread again I'll just pass over your comments in silence.