if nothing is strictly true, then that implies that the statement that “nothing is strictly true” is also not strictly true, i.e. there are exceptions which are strictly true …
jokes aside, your comment reminds me of a funny story i once read where a biologist does research on clover (you might know this one). he investigates all clover he can find and finds that they all have 3 leaves. so he calls it a law of nature that clover has three leaves.
one faithful morning, he walks out of door and finds a 4-leaved clover in the garden (which is symbol of good luck in some cultures). however, he rebukes at that and tries to sue the clover for violating the law of nature …
kinda the same spirit as what you said above. people make observations, then make these observations into laws, and if somebody breaks them, that’s their fault. instead, the model was conceived inappropriately .
ok then two comments:
if nothing is strictly true, then that implies that the statement that “nothing is strictly true” is also not strictly true, i.e. there are exceptions which are strictly true …
jokes aside, your comment reminds me of a funny story i once read where a biologist does research on clover (you might know this one). he investigates all clover he can find and finds that they all have 3 leaves. so he calls it a law of nature that clover has three leaves.
one faithful morning, he walks out of door and finds a 4-leaved clover in the garden (which is symbol of good luck in some cultures). however, he rebukes at that and tries to sue the clover for violating the law of nature …
kinda the same spirit as what you said above. people make observations, then make these observations into laws, and if somebody breaks them, that’s their fault. instead, the model was conceived inappropriately .