Philosophy of Science: Nancy Cartwright

I recently finished reading Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts by Nancy Cartwright (not the voice actor for Bart Simpson) in Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues Second Edition and am just as confused as I was yesterday :)) which is always fantastic. We have yet to cover it during my philosophy lecture but what I can infer from the reading is Cartwright’s bluntness about the laws of gravitation and ultimately physics not stating facts. She did not “beat around the bush” and tackled the problem head-on. What was so intriguing was she was not trying to debunk the facticity of physics entirely, but she claimed the usefulness of physics and others alike. Talking about the laws of gravitation: “Does this law truly describe how bodies behave? Assuredly not.” She refers to the facticity of the law of gravitation with the law of energy because they are contradictory. Which makes sense. 
Cartwright than shortly introduces how vector addition introduces causal powers because when “adding” forces it’s unrealistic or a “metaphor.” When talking about something as imperative as “forces” and gravitation (reasons for why and how an innumerable amount of things are today), we cannot add them like 1+1. This idea of vector addition “is a nice one,” but not something defining the facts of nature. See the source image
Cartwright then introduces Mill, the rebuttal, and says why he would perhaps deny these claims of the un-facticity of vector addition. “Mill would deny this. He thinks that in cases of the composition of causes, each separate effect does exist --- it exists as part of the resultant effect, just as the left half of the table exists as part of the whole table” (Cartwright 876). Cartwright disagrees, these entities Mill is talking about are more temporary than what he is referring them to be. Without delving too much into the issue, it’s important to note that “the laws of physics are to explain how phenomena are brought about, they cannot state facts.”

Albert Camus - The Stranger

I recently finished reading The Stranger by Albert Camus and it was very — odd. I don't enjoy books that do not have a definite ending and this one fell right into that category. The book itself was very complex, not the writing itself but the character, Meursalt. There were so many reasons for why Meursalt was the way he was but none of those felt just right.  The language at the beginning is surely indicative to the kind of character Meursalt is, but by the end we see a drastic change. From using extremely basic language to somewhat advanced syntax was notable. I came to the conclusion about Meursalt that maybe what was so peculiar about him that maybe there wasn't anything peculiar about him. He had not ambition or desire like the other characters. There are moments when he is, quite literally, doing nothing. On the other hand, the other characters each seem to have something to do or want. Raymond want's to hurt the girl that betrayed him and Marie wants to marry Meursalt, but Meursalt clearly has no desire to do anything but go on with his life. Although, by the end when he faces death we see the most "human" Meursalt has been throughout the book. He spewed a dramatic stream of emotion and anger that was shocking because he hadn't displayed this kind of emotion when his mother died or even when he shot the Arab. In the end, Meursalt is definitely a dynamic character and it's extremely unfortunate he was ordered to be beheaded in front of everyone just when he seemed to discover a new side of emotion. I write this to you 30 minutes from my biology exam because I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know, bye :).