>>21230098>inertia is fake? How about gravity?Yes. The invisible forces are fake. Its not fake that you can push things or things can fall. Its fake to say 'this happens because of gravity'.
When a scientist sees a thing fall, he wants to generate an absolute universal principal, a law, to describe it. Modern science is running into problems as our technology has allowed us to see further or on different scales. Everyone panics because the nice neat laws we made are getting fucked up by some of our observations. They try to pile on more and more absolute laws that only kick in under the specific circumstances that our current laws seem to be failing, and make a convoluted mess of assumptions.
You cannot define the universe with universal laws. Universal laws themselves are a wrong premise. They are a result of a certain kind of naturalistic thinking and it is that thing which i have identified as being the core impulse of science, the inclination towards this worldview. That is what im criticizing.
I am well aware of how scientists get all poetic about how exciting finding out we are wrong is. I am saying the attempt to look for universal laws is itself a flawed idea.
This idea, of universal laws, is reinforced further in our current way of thinking since the liberal enlightenment. It is the drive towards the generalized idea, the elegant and simple way of breaking the universe down into simple interactions between cosmic absolutes. Whether it be mechanical interactions, social interactions, etc. People want to quantify things so that they can define them by listing properties which have known definite formulas and then be able to understand the thing not in itself but as the product or conjunction of causation. Something that manifests out of the laws.
That is what science actually is, and its simple a false premise from the start
