الفهرس 
الفصل الأوليوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 193 |  |  |
| | | from | 193 | | |
المستخلص
The designation ””law of nature”” or similar names such as ””scientific law”” or ””natural law”” are not technical terms defined in any empirical science. Undoubtedly, there are many phrases that are described as ””laws”” by the scientific community. On the other hand, scholars do not agree on the merit or merit of many statements about the name ””law of nature”” and even layman would hesitate to consider whether the statement is appropriate as a law. Likewise, the tacit acceptance that represents most of our beliefs, which Nagel meant, is what David Hume meant in his attempt to solve the problem of induction with the so-called “habit” that arises out of “repetition.” Why should we all expect with so much confidence that cases not in our experience will Are those that occurred?, and as we have seen Hume replied to this, “Usually or of course, that is the problem that Hume put forward, on the basis of which he considered the continuity of nature unprovable, and that the ideas of the continuum of nature are not self-contradictory, and the view of trying to prove this principle with empirical proofs includes a role Logically, “Nagel” may agree with “Mill” in rejecting the image of the causality in these areas that he mentioned in “Mel”, as it seeks to establish the ontology on a tribal basis, colored by logical necessity, and therefore it cannot provide us with satisfactory results or Correct for scientific research. Nagel asserts, from the outset, that the difference between the abstract scientific theory and the hypothesis is not according to Rankin or the supporters of the descriptive view, so that the hypothetical theory is referred to the abstract theory, but the difference is limited to something else. The function of the hypotheses for ””Nagel””, is to direct our search for order in the facts. And the suggestions that are formulated in the hypotheses may provide us with solutions to the problem. It is not necessary that these proposals lead to our objective. We often find some suggestions contradict each other, so that not all solutions can be offered to the same problem.