Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?

[Augustus]

I don't know about that. I think usually words are defined by their usage. And every time I see the word being used...

Put the term into Google Scholar and you'll find a whole new world of usage...

But I'll also say that for the purpose of this thread, I didn't look it up in the dictionary yet.
In this thread, it seemed appropriate to have the people who wish to discuss or use this term, to define it.

Excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods (often with a consequent dismissal of non-scientific knowledge).

Basically a failure to suitably account for the limitations of scientific methods in certain areas and an underestimation of the utility of non-scientific methods in these areas.

Not that I'm denying that this happens, but can you give an example?

Simple historical examples for overstating the scope of scientific methodologies would be the logical positivism of Auguste Comte or the "scientific" approach to history of some Marxists.

Today people tend not to be quite so crude of course, but you see people like Sam Harris advocating a "scientific" morality.

In complex domains, the degree to which reductionist methodologies can lead to meaningful insights is certainly questionable too. This would relate to both scope and accuracy.

If you look back at the start of the covid issues, "trust the science" types were insisting there was nothing to worry about, travel bans were unnecessary and masks were harmful. Naive empiricism (there's no evidence masks work!) is a hallmark of scientism.

In terms of dismissing non-scientific knowledge, it's not hard to see people on RF and disparaging things like philosophy as "useless".

As I said though, I don't remember ever hearing the word "scientism" be used in any other context then as a means to try and undermine valid scientific reasoning.

That's because you aren't looking in the right places

 

[cladking]

Excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods (often with a consequent dismissal of non-scientific knowledge).

Basically a failure to suitably account for the limitations of scientific methods in certain areas and an underestimation of the utility of non-scientific methods in these areas.

I'm in close agreement with your post and thoughts and they are accurate and quite comprehensive.

However a couple more ideas need to be added. There is a failure to see where the scientific method is only partly effective and the fact that it's impossible to know the degree to which it is effective. The most dramatic example may be the "theory" of evolution where consciousness and individuals are not even considered relevant to change in species. It is simply assumed that consciousness can be factored out as a part of "fitness" and individuals can be ignored in favor of "species". It's hardly impossible that these assumptions are correct but experience tells me there is a highly warped understanding of change in species and its caused by these assumptions being false. I believe consciousness is life. You can't factor out life to understand change in life.

But this misapplication of science hardly stops and starts with the fossil record and it pervades every scientific field with disastrous results in some and odd quirks in others.

Any science not established by experiment is not really science at all but hypothesis at best. Even where experiment exists it's not always accurate to extrapolate results.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That things fall is an observation. That they fall at 32 ft/s/s is a measurement. That they fall because all masses attractive one another by an unknown means is a fact. Calling all this "gravity" is fine only so long as it is remembered that the means by which things fall is unknown.

You say that things fall because things with mass attract one another.
Then you say that why things fall is unknown.

Semantics is always irrelevant and it's easy to substitute words and beliefs for knowledge.

Naming things is not merely semantics. It's a requirement for communication.
When I say "gravity", everybody knows what I'm talking about and nobody denies the reality of it.

There's nothing wrong with it until people start believing they know everything like why things fall and what makes the sun come up in the morning. It's not chickens and inertia is just another observation.

Nevertheless, it can be calculated and predicted extremely precisely which trajectory, speed and acceleration an object under the influence of gravity in a vacuum will take. It can predicted precisely when the sun will "come up" or when the moon will block it forming a solar eclips or how to make sure a satelite orbits the planet instead of shooting into space / crashing to earth, or how to use the gravity of celestial bodies to "slingshot" probes to other places in the solar system or................

Nobody claims that we know everything. Especially not concerning how gravity works or what it is exactly. But to point to open questions to downplay the things we DO know and understand, is kind of dishonest imo.

I am! There are likely numerous possible sciences each with their own metaphysics. Termites did not invent agriculture through experiment so that shows there are at least two sciences.

Humans didn't require science to invent agriculture either. Or the wheel. Or tame fire. Or smelt iron.
Science as we know it is only a couple centuries old. Its birth kind of propelled society into a technologically advanced one in a very short time. Because it's the best method to find out how the world works.

You claim there are other, better, methods? Unfortunately, you did not take the time to actually point them out and explain how they work and demonstrate / support how they do a better job.

I didn't, and don't, expect you to though. Because I'm quite certain that you aren't able to do so.

We know that gravity travels at around the speed of light but we can't say that gravity and light share any properties or natures. It merely appears there is some commonality.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you have a real world example?

Tell this to those practicing scientism because it is wasted on me.

I would if I ever were to meet one.
They seem to be extremely rare though.
I don't know anybody who would say that science deals in certainties.

Yes!

Science doesn't deal in certainties so all conclusions are tentative. To believe otherwise is scientism.

So when you visit New York and find yourself at the top of the empire state building... Is it "scientism" to decide that the safest way to go down is by elevator or stairs and that it's probably not a good idea to simply jump down?

Or when science tells us that during a dangerous pandemic it's a good idea to wear masks and practice some social distance, is it then "scientism" to follow that advice?

Is it "scientism" also to expect that if I press the "reply to thread" button, that my post will show up on the forum and that you'll be able to read it at the other side of the world a nanosecond later?

To believe at all is scientism.

If you say so.

I guess I'm a "scientismist" then. Along with just about every other human.

 

[Augustus]

Or when science tells us that during a dangerous pandemic it's a good idea to wear masks and practice some social distance, is it then "scientism" to follow that advice?

No, but it may be scientism to not question the fact that 'science' also told us not to wear masks, or close borders or worry about the pandemic.

People who 'trusted the science' at all times would have been doing both the right thing and the wrong thing at various times.

 

[Rival]

No, but it may be scientism to not question the fact that 'science' also told us not to wear masks, or close borders or worry about the pandemic.

People who 'trusted the science' at all times would have been doing both the right thing and the wrong thing at various times.

You can buy paracetamol over the counter in the UK.

You need to go to a pharmacy and have a doctor's approval in France.

As I'm guessing the science doesn't change from one country to another, either paracetamol is safe for individual choice use or it's not.

 

[cladking]

You say that things fall because things with mass attract one another.
Then you say that why things fall is unknown.

We can observe and calculate masses attracting one another but this hardly means we know why they attract one another. We merely named it "gravity".

It can predicted precisely when the sun will "come up" or when the moon will block it forming a solar eclips or how to make sure a satelite orbits the planet instead of shooting into space / crashing to earth, or how to use the gravity of celestial bodies to "slingshot" probes to other places in the solar system or................

No. The better things are measured and the better they are understood the more precisely they can be predicted and the further into the future. But every system has chaotic components so predicting the sunrise in a billion years gets a great deal trickier and less accurate.

I would if I ever were to meet one.
They seem to be extremely rare though.
I don't know anybody who would say that science deals in certainties.

Every biologist believes species change gradually through survival of the fittest. Every Egyptologist believes ancient people were highly ignorant and superstitious, and every surgeon in the 1860's believed washing his hands was a waste of time. The only thing more certain was that most of their patients died of infections.

Is it "scientism" to decide that the safest way to go down is by elevator or stairs and that it's probably not a good idea to simply jump down?

That would be deduction.

I guess I'm a "scientismist" then. Along with just about every other human.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

All modern people hold all of their knowledge in taxonomies, models, and beliefs all of which are not real and do not exist in the real world. Our knowledge is highly abstract.

We have no choice because the brain is programmed by language and this is the programming we've been given (by our parents). Our models lead us act like mystics unless we choose to also models rules to force our beliefs to conform with experiment and the metaphysics that brought us the knowledge.

 

[cladking]

No, but it may be scientism to not question the fact that 'science' also told us not to wear masks, or close borders or worry about the pandemic.

People who 'trusted the science' at all times would have been doing both the right thing and the wrong thing at various times.

It's been nothing but lies from the very beginning. Now that the disease is going away we are told that the problem is those without vaccinations. Which problem is that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can observe and calculate masses attracting one another but this hardly means we know why they attract one another. We merely named it "gravity".

But it does mean that we know why things fall to earth instead of shooting into space.

No.

Yes. How can you keep a straight face and say "no" to that?
Eclipses are predicted accurately all the time well before they happen.
Probes are being shot to mars using the gravity of celestial bodies to "slingshot" it in the required direction.
Satelites stay in orbit.
Everything going into space does so by achieving escape velocity, for which detailed calculations are required in terms of fuel etc.

So yes, this happens all the time.
Yes, gravity is understood well enough to allow us to do these things.

The better things are measured and the better they are understood the more precisely they can be predicted and the further into the future.

Measurements don't allow for predictions unless you unravel the equations that underpin those measurements.

Every biologist believes species change gradually through survival of the fittest.

I have yet to see a biologist use the phrase "survival of the fittest" in a professional setting.

Having said that, that species change gradually over generations is a demonstrable, verifiable genetic fact. Not some theory or hypothesis.

Every Egyptologist believes ancient people were highly ignorant and superstitious, and every surgeon in the 1860's believed washing his hands was a waste of time. The only thing more certain was that most of their patients died of infections.

None of this has anything to do with science not dealing in certainties.
Nor does it have anything to do with the point that was being made: being that I don't know a single person with basic education who claims that science DOES deal in certainties.

Theories are called "theories" for a reason you know.
Theories always remain theories. No matter how absurd the idea becomes of the theory being wrong.
It remains theory. Theories can not be "proven" (which would result in certainty), they can only be "supported" (which results in things being likely true, not certainly true).

That would be deduction.

So is that "scientism"?
After all, you said that believing anything scientific is to engage in "scientism".

To believe that gravity will make you plummet to your death, is pretty much believing the sciences concerning gravity, right?

So how is that NOT "scientism", if you define scientism as believing anything scientific?

This is exactly what I've been saying.

Then the word "scientism" is entirely meaningless.

 

[cladking]

But it does mean that we know why things fall to earth instead of shooting into space.

No, not really.

People once believed all things were attracted to the earth and they didn't know why the planets stayed aloft.

Yes. How can you keep a straight face and say "no" to that?

There's a margin of error. Right now that margin of error is with a millionth of second but the same equations will result in far larger margins of error as the prediction goes out further in time. We don't even know where the earth will be in a billion years far less what time of day it will be.

Most things can't be predicted even a day in advance which is why the media invent something new every day.

Eclipses are predicted accurately all the time well before they happen.

People have been accurately predicting eclipses since long before we understood the nature of orbits or even that the earth isn't flat (if you believe orthodoxy).

Satelites stay in orbit.

By definition.

Measurements don't allow for predictions unless you unravel the equations that underpin those measurements.

And just because we know some of the equations for gross movements doesn't mean wee understand why that equation applies, why the constants are as they are, or even that we know all the equations.

I have yet to see a biologist use the phrase "survival of the fittest" in a professional setting.

Semantics! They believe the fittest survive to reproduce and this affects the species no matter what words they use.

Having said that, that species change gradually over generations is a demonstrable, verifiable genetic fact. Not some theory or hypothesis.

No. All that the fossil record shows is that they change. It shows virtually no "gradual" change. "Gradual change" is an interpolation of observation and not an experimental fact.

None of this has anything to do with science not dealing in certainties.
Nor does it have anything to do with the point that was being made: being that I don't know a single person with basic education who claims that science DOES deal in certainties.

We all deal in certainties because this is the way we think. Good scientists and metaphysicians strive to examine the nature of what is known but most people live in a black and white world all the time.

Models are not ephemeral but rather rigid and fixed. Beliefs exist all the time. Premises are rarely examined. This is simply the nature of being human so dogma changes one funeral at a time.

So is that "scientism"?

No.

After all, you said that believing anything scientific is to engage in "scientism".

All belief is superstition. Beliefs that involve science is "scientism".

So how is that NOT "scientism", if you define scientism as believing anything scientific?

Taking the elevator instead of jumping is common sense and the knowledge that bodies striking the ground at terminal velocity is fatal. Since all things that fall are observed to approach terminal velocity it would be unwise to try it. But this still doesn't mean we know why gravity works or even that it will always in every case continue to work.

Then the word "scientism" is entirely meaningless.

Just because we all have beliefs doesn't mean we each act on the exact same beliefs or act in the same way. Those with bad models and erroneous beliefs will simply be wrong more frequently while those with good models either good beliefs or with bad beliefs that don't factor into a calculation will be right more often. Good metaphysicians can often factor out bad beliefs by factoring out all beliefs.

"Science" is and always has been about being right and making good predictions. It will always be about this and certainty will always preserve dogma no matter how wrong it is.

 

[cladking]

Let me try another definition of "scientism". It is the belief that all of reality can be understood through reductionism. It is the belief that we don't need to undertstand the past to predict the future. It is the belief that in time all things will be predictable. It is the belief that we already understand everything that is truly important and that virtually everything is known. "Scientism" is certainty. It is faith and it is faith not only in the accuracy and robustness of models but in the scientific method itself as some sort of magic driven by intelligence that casts off technology which is a manifestation of understanding reality.

Scientism is a belief that all things can be reduced to numbers and experiment without any concern for the nature of the numbers or the experimenter. It is a belief in the constancy of reality and the intellect of those who study it. It is a belief that premises and definitions are irrelevant to science.

 

[cladking]

To provide some idea of why reductionism can't ever make prediction and is very far from understanding even the fundamental make up of reality consider that every event no matter how tiny reverberates through the future forever. Most of these events, indeed, all of these events are on the molecular level where we can't know both the position and speed of atoms in collisions and they are chaotic in nature.

Predicting the future will always be impossible. Where you think you can, it is too gross a scale or too short a time frame. Try predicting when the next time a specific water molecule in your cup will come your way again. Try predicting which ones will be in your cup next August 2nd.

Butterflies in China cause unpredictable hurricanes.

We believe there are "laws of nature" but this is a religious concept far more than it has anything to do with science or metaphysics. Reality unfolds according to numerous processes and it is hubris to think we understand this. Even though every indication and all logic suggest cause precedes effect many more believe in multiverses than the chronological order of cause and effect.

Reality happens but we can't even see it before during or after the fact because we see what we believe instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To provide some idea of why reductionism can't ever make prediction and is very far from understanding even the fundamental make up of reality consider that every event no matter how tiny reverberates through the future forever. Most of these events, indeed, all of these events are on the molecular level where we can't know both the position and speed of atoms in collisions and they are chaotic in nature.

Predicting the future will always be impossible.

Is it?

I'm holding my keys. I predict that they will fall to the ground when I open my hand.

Why would you look at that....... they DID fall to earth.

I'm such a prophet.

Try predicting when the next time a specific water molecule in your cup will come your way again.

???

Why would you expect that to be possible?
What's even the point of this statement?

We believe there are "laws of nature" but this is a religious concept

No, it's not.
The universe is obviously governed by laws which manifest due to the nature of the universe and they work the same always everywhere.

That we can't predict certain things because they are impossible to calculate due to waaaaaaay to many variables does not change that.

Every single time that I let go of my keys, they will fall to earth.
Every. Single. Time.

If there were no such things as laws of nature, why would that be the case?
Why don't my keys randomly shoot into space?

Reality unfolds according to numerous processes and it is hubris to think we understand this.

So you say on an internet forum using a device that communicates at light speed which can only work as the result of explanatory theories and laws that make millions of predictions concerning how electrons behave etc etc etc etc etc.

Technology is literally the result of accurate predictions flowing from explanatory models.

Do you even realize just how much science and explanatory theories and predictions are involved to make your message show up on this board after you hit the "reply" button?

Even though every indication and all logic suggest cause precedes effect many more believe in multiverses than the chronological order of cause and effect.

Causality is a phenomenon that applies within the space-time continuum.
The physics of this universe only apply in this universe as it is dependent on the space-time continuum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Put the term into Google Scholar and you'll find a whole new world of usage...

Sure. But this is not google scholar. This is an internet forum with laypeople talking.

It could be that they are using the word "wrong". But I don't see the point in me talking to them with another definition in mind then what they mean by it. We'ld just be talking past eachother. I see no point in that.

Today people tend not to be quite so crude of course, but you see people like Sam Harris advocating a "scientific" morality.

And I think he makes a reasonable case for it, considering how he defines morality.

If you look back at the start of the covid issues, "trust the science" types were insisting there was nothing to worry about, travel bans were unnecessary and masks were harmful.

Huh? Who are you talking about?
What I remember from the first days was that scientists were screaming to go into lockdowns and close borders and practice social distancing etc and it were politicians who refused to take action saying it would all be just fine...

I can off course only speak for my experience in my own country.

I don't remember a single science expert from a relevant field saying that "masks were harmful".

Naive empiricism (there's no evidence masks work!) is a hallmark of scientism.

??????????????????

Here, you lost me completely.
Masks are daily business in every medical setting where there is risk of infection. And that's been the case long before covid.

Saying "no evidence masks work!" is not so much naive empiricism or a "hallmark of scientism" as it is a hallmark of scientific ignorance. Where did you get this?

Again, surgeons have been wearing them for ages. Why?

In terms of dismissing non-scientific knowledge, it's not hard to see people on RF and disparaging things like philosophy as "useless".

Especially if one ignores context.
Yes, I have seen many people call philosophy "useless". Including myself.
But there's a context there. It's useless in specific contexts.
Are we just going to ignore that?

That's because you aren't looking in the right places

So day to day conversation aren't the "right places" then I guess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but it may be scientism to not question the fact that 'science' also told us not to wear masks, or close borders or worry about the pandemic.

And what do you call it when what was actually said is being misrepresented?

Medical science didn't change its mind about the efficiency of masks.
Masks have always been sufficient.

The reason, in Belgium at least, why in the beginning they advised against it, is because there was a shortage. And if 6 million Belgians suddenly went out to stock up on masks, then stocks would have been depleted within a day and there would have been none left for actual health workers, who actually needed them most of all as they come into contact with hundreds of covid patients every day as part of their job.

I don't know how communication was in whatever country you are from, but in Belgium this was explained clearly on day one, by the medical experts that worked with the government to inform both politicians as well as the public on how to deal with this thing.

They literally said "Stocks of masks are low and health workers need all that we have. Also at this point, we are in lockdown and in social distancing mode, so masks aren't going to make a big difference anyway since social contacts are limited to a strict minimum for the time being. When stocks have been refilled and the lock down lifted, then we can talk about masks in spaces where social distancing can't be guaranteed or when in poorly ventilated rooms etc."

Maybe this is more a case of you confusing media coverage with scientific expertise?

People who 'trusted the science' at all times would have been doing both the right thing and the wrong thing at various times.

I trust science at all times, while fully realizing that science doesn't deal in certainties and absolutes.
So yes, going by the science could mean that you do the wrong thing. The irony is that it will take more science to find out.....

One can only try and make informed decisions. You can only go by what you actually know and understand. And if your knowledge or understanding is wrong / incomplete, then yes your decision might be the wrong one.

I don't see this as a problem. I see this as an inevitable consequence of the process of learning and progress.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can buy paracetamol over the counter in the UK.

You need to go to a pharmacy and have a doctor's approval in France.

As I'm guessing the science doesn't change from one country to another, either paracetamol is safe for individual choice use or it's not.

That doesn't seem like a science issue as much as a political one.

 

[Augustus]

Saying "no evidence masks work!" is not so much naive empiricism or a "hallmark of scientism" as it is a hallmark of scientific ignorance. Where did you get this?

To be clear once again, Americans don't need masks. The CDC says that healthy people in the US shouldn't wear them because they won't protect them from the novel coronavirus.
In fact, warns US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, face masks might actually increase your risk of infection if they aren't worn properly.
But medical workers who treat patients with novel coronavirus do need them. And, the CDC says, it's crucial that those supplies don't run out.

When it comes to hysteria and panic, though, reason takes a backseat.
"This is a psychological thing," Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told CNN. "The coronavirus is coming, and we feel rather helpless. By getting masks and wearing them, we move the locus of control somewhat to ourselves."

Coronavirus hysteria is leading to mass mask shortages. For health care officials, they're essential. For Chinese Americans, they're a lifeline home. - CNN


Members of the public could be putting themselves more at risk from contracting coronavirus by wearing face masks, one of England’s most senior doctors has warned.

Jenny Harries, deputy chief medical officer, said the masks could “actually trap the virus” and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in...


Face masks could increase risk of getting coronavirus, medical chief warns

US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams not only wants people to stop buying facemasks to prevent the novel coronavirus, but warns that you actually might increase your risk of infection if facemasks are not worn properly... "You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,"

On Sunday, Adams posted on Twitter that people should stop buying masks. Rather, he tweeted that to keep yourself and those around you healthy, wash your hands often, avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands and disinfect surfaces.

Face masks: WHO stands by recommendation to not wear them if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick - CNN

The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed its advice on face masks, saying they should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible to help stop the spread of coronavirus.

The global body said new information showed they could provide "a barrier for potentially infectious droplets".

Some countries already recommend or mandate face coverings in public.

The WHO had previously argued there was not enough evidence to say that healthy people should wear masks.

However, WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Friday that "in light of evolving evidence, the WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments".

Coronavirus: WHO advises to wear masks in public areas

Based on currently available information, WHO does not recommend any restriction of travel or trade. Standard recommendations to prevent infection spread for travellers in or from affected areas include regular hand washing, covering mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, and avoiding close contact with anyone showing symptoms of respiratory illness.

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

I don't know how communication was in whatever country you are from, but in Belgium this was explained clearly on day one, by the medical experts that worked with the government to inform both politicians as well as the public on how to deal with this thing.

Day 1 being when you already had a lockdown several months after the start of the problem?

What I remember from the first days was that scientists were screaming to go into lockdowns and close borders and practice social distancing etc

When was this?

Can you date the start of the scientists screaming for all of these to Jan 2020 for example?

 

[Augustus]

Sure. But this is not google scholar. This is an internet forum with laypeople talking.

It could be that they are using the word "wrong". But I don't see the point in me talking to them with another definition in mind then what they mean by it. We'ld just be talking past eachother. I see no point in that.

They are often not using the word wrongly in terms of definition, they are making fallacious arguments to justify their claims.

Also if someone values intellectual curiosity and rationality they should be interested in challenging their assumptions anyway.

And I think he makes a reasonable case for it, considering how he defines morality.

He basically redefines science as being 'thinking rationally', then makes a load of philosophical assumptions that are very subjective (such as morality is the well being of conscious creatures) then basically says we can use rational thinking to help us maximise the well being of conscious creatures.

It is not remotely a "scientific morality", but a book about how reason can help in making ethical decisions is not exactly a novel or interesting thesis. It was a good sales ploy to fool his audience into buying a trite book.

Especially if one ignores context.
Yes, I have seen many people call philosophy "useless". Including myself.
But there's a context there. It's useless in specific contexts.
Are we just going to ignore that?

Everything is useless in specific contexts. But that is not the argument that tends to be made.

The argument is that it is generally useless.

In what situations would you say it is useless?

I trust science at all times, while fully realizing that science doesn't deal in certainties and absolutes.
So yes, going by the science could mean that you do the wrong thing. The irony is that it will take more science to find out.....

What does it even mean to "trust science at all times"? That sounds like a meaningless platitude to me.

If we look at the history of science it seems a ridiculous thing to say too. Countless erroneous and very harmful beliefs were 'scientific' in their time (racialism for example)

I'd say it is far more rational to be very sceptical of science in areas it has proved unreliable in the past, and especially the social sciences.

We accept it can be useful in the right situations, but that it is and always has been a major source of false beliefs too.

 

[gnostic]

If we look at the history of science it seems a ridiculous thing to say too. Countless erroneous and very harmful beliefs were 'scientific' in their time (racialism for example)

Racism is social issue, and even political issue.

Racism or racialism, have nothing to do with science or being scientific.

 

[Augustus]

Racism is social issue, and even political issue.

Racism or racialism, have nothing to do with science or being scientific.

Scientific racialism had nothing to do with science or being scientific?

Might want to do a bit of reading on that issue...

 

[cladking]

I'm holding my keys. I predict that they will fall to the ground when I open my hand.

Why would you look at that....... they DID fall to earth.

Have you ever seen a squirrel let go of a tree and plummet to its death? Have you ever seen one carry a nut up a tree and let it go?

What's even the point of this statement?

Do you see the "infinite" complexity of reality? "Infinite" isn't a big enough number compared to the numbers of zeros needed to compute such odds. "Infinite" is like a tiny fraction compared to the numbers generated by reality. If a butterfly flaps its wings in China will it cause a specific tree to be blown down in Kansas? What do we need to know to train butterflies to flap such as to reduce damage?

The universe is obviously governed by laws which manifest due to the nature of the universe and they work the same always everywhere.

Really! I don't see this or any experiment that shows it. Despite the fact you phrased your belief as a tautology there is still no evidence that the "nature of the universe" is to obey any sort of "laws". This is the heart of "scientism" really. The ability to create and make predictions is not tantamount to a complete understanding as evidenced by the fact predictions always fail when the scale is small enough or the time frame long enough. It might be more accurate to say any "laws of nature" are in the form of "squirrels can't drop nuts".

Yes, experiments are repeatable and this underlies theory but it is extrapolation to refer to such repeatability as "law".

If there were no such things as laws of nature, why would that be the case?
Why don't my keys randomly shoot into space?

So far as we know at the current time gravity can't be turned on, off, or sideways. It can't be shielded or deflected. It can only be affected by changing the apparent mass of the objects. But we still don't know what causes it so it is hubris to to assume there is some "law of gravity" just as its hubris to refer to the "Law of Evolution" or "laws" of great pyramid building.

So you say on an internet forum using a device that communicates at light speed which can only work as the result of explanatory theories and laws that make millions of predictions concerning how electrons behave etc etc etc etc etc.

No it does not. It works because of circuitry that forces electrons through specific paths. It works because each component works not because of "science" or "laws".

Do you even realize just how much science and explanatory theories and predictions are involved to make your message show up on this board after you hit the "reply" button?

I think that the real miracle isn't the computer, the keyboard, or even the fingers doing the typing. The real miracle is the consciousness which can order words so others can understand. The real miracle is when any two people can communicate any concept using modern language.

Causality is a phenomenon that applies within the space-time continuum.

I'm not sure I believe in any "space-time continuum". This is an invention going back to Euclid as being axiomatic to human awareness and science. "Axioms" are fine but they aren't chiseled in stone but rather they are provisional on them being the simplest formatting for understanding reality. All science is not dependent on the existence of "space time". Our reductionistic science is.

The physics of this universe only apply in this universe as it is dependent on the space-time continuum.

Do you believe another universe exists? How much of this one (assuming it's the right one for our physics) has been explored?