All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
in [Logic]
|
From: tg on 6 Jun 2010 07:47 On Jun 5, 8:56 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: As a famous scientist once said, > "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good > explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific > method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the > experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. > > I. The scientific method has four steps > > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. > > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, > the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a > mathematical relation. > It should be noted that a causal mechanism (I like the term(s) causal narrative, or physical model) 'explains' while a mathematical relation or mathematical model 'describes'. In physics, for the most part, both are essential to working with the theory. With reference to some other posts in this thread: 'Laws' I think traditionally refers to a description, whether mathematical or not, as in Newton's Laws of Motion. But remember, Newton famously eschewed a causal narrative. -tg > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, > or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. > > 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. > > If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded > as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, > model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the > hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the > description of the scientific method just given is the predictive > power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see > Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It > is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only > disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a > new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. >
From: Michael Gordge on 14 Jun 2010 18:26
On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I tend not to "believe" things, because belief does not require > evidence. Is that an example of something you do not believe? MG |