Talk:Scientific law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Filll's attempt to find nonphysical scientific laws

What other nonphysical scientific laws are there? here are some sites to look at:

Some sort of universal mortality law. Not clear from abstract

comment from this article it would appear that the Universal Growth Law is now accepted. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. I want to get a short list of "biological laws" so that we do not imply that scientific laws are only physical laws or chemical laws (which are basically physical laws at their roots, anyway).--Filll 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
comment Some of the above are not authoritative review articles on 'scientific law', but just individuals' opinions. Care for some geological examples? Here are 46 tectonic laws: Bucher, W.H, 1933. The deformation of the Earth's crust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Here is a typical example of a scaling law from geology:-- Geologist (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy of science discussion of natural law/scientific law

[edit] Confusion about laws and thoeries

The second paragraph seems to be thoroughly confused about what the relationship between a law and a theory is. Laws are empirical facts (observations) and are always true to the error of measurement. Theories are models that try to explain these observations. So theories never become laws becouse they are more general (and not becouse they cannot be proven, which is true but not very relevant here).

Incidently the term law is usually applied when there someone finds a relationship which is yet unexplained by any theory or model. They are (at the time of their naming) sets of puzzles remaining to be solved.

86.101.162.160 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No you are incorrect, according to my reading on this issue at the National Academy of Sciences. A law is not an observation. Sorry.--Filll
Ah! Wrong for 40 years? Could you reference this reading, where the NAS claims a law cannot be an observation? Tx. Geologist (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A law is an observation in nature, like for example the sun rising every day. It's not meant to be a model like a theory is. Theories on the other hand describe laws -- eg why does the sun rise every day? Any explanation for this question, the law or observation that the sun rises, is a theory. Of course you distinguish between hypothesis and theory but you get what I'm saying. This is a HUGE misconception among people. I don't know how many people I've met both online and in real life who had no idea what the difference between a law and a theory was. And this wikipedia article isn't helping. Theories do not turn into laws, ever. I might fix this page at a latter date. 157.182.185.102 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [1veedo]
Fixed to some degree, "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it." I worded a law as "describing an observation in nature" when in reality a law actually -IS- (for the most part, though not entirely) an observation in nature where the theory is a model to explain the observation/law. I think grammatically the two wordings make equal sense but it might be beneficial to point out the latter as well. 157.182.185.102 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
--- Agreed. I was wondering about the theory page as well; there seems to be no explanation about the relationship between laws and theories there either. Maybe you could fix that page as well??? The current subsection there about scientific laws isn't wrong or anything but there should be a mention of how theories tend to explain laws while laws are more or less just general observations in science. It really should be part of the main article as well because the purpose of a theory is to explain these sorts of observations in nature, and generally speaking in most sciences you have a law and then a theory explaining this law (eg evolution, gravity, etc). Thanks.

[edit] Line removed from text

Generally, scientific laws are taken to be proven to a degree somewhat beyond a scientific theory that is still under investigation.

I would agree with this. Does it need a source?--Filll 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What!? Chemical thermodyamics is filled with laws abstracted from observations, accurate to varying degrees. Many are not even correct, let alone verified at the moment (never 'proven' true). The only scientific theories not 'still under investigation' are those proven false.
Look, 'fact' is not really within the diction of science (though it is sometimes attributed to objective statements about specimens, which we all immediately recognize as subjective), 'observation' takes its place; and 'truth' differs greatly from the absolute truth of philosophers. A statement scientists accept as true today, they may accept as false tomorrow. When a scientist starts to make very similar observations or see almost the same relation among processes, he can call it a law and append his name to it. After dozens of laws within one domain of science collect, a theory will appear that deduces them all from very few, acceptable axioms. References to these laws usually then disappear from the literature.
All scientific theories are still under investigation, and no (provisional) scientific law is, or can be, proven in the philosophical sense. We can prove a theory false, when (many of) its prediction are observed to be false (not one). (Who doesn't make mistakes?) One can 'prove' a statement, deduced from a currently accepted theory, true by deduction from its axioms. This truth can quickly become false. No law (abstracted from observed specimens) can possibly be 'taken to be proven (true)', in either the philosophical sense (which positivists don't use here) or the scientific sense (which requires the sturdy framework of a theory, which is evaluated for scientific truth as a whole).
Observations are objective, 'facts' are subjective, and truths are deduced. Nothing is proven true that can't be proven false tomorrow. Geologist (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory". (Right?)

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory". I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: [1] -Alex.rosenheim 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The only laws i know in biology are Mendel's and Hardy Weinberg Law. I have never heard evolution described as a law. David D. (Talk) 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That is my point. It isn't commonly discussed as a "law", even though it may satisfy the accepted scientific meaning of the term "Law". (There is very little difference in the definition...which leaves a subjective choice). I am suggesting/supporting Mr. Thompson's suggestion that we can change the debate by changing the vocabulary of the debate. But it doesn't work unless it is still accurate. I say that "Law" is just as accurate as "Theory" in the case of Evolution. But I am posing it in the discussion section not the article since I know that this would raise questions. It would be appropriate, since it can be referenced with a published work...but I wanted to vet it first. -Alex.rosenheim 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if the scientific community does not use the term what would be the point of wikipedia? We should not be pushing the agenda, i.e. evolution should be a law. Likewise little weight should be given to a columnist in Wired, although the points are interesting, they are almost irrelevant to the debate. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This question seems apropos to 'scientific law' in that the Wikipedia has been clearly designated as being descriptive, not prescriptive. This article discusses only one use of 'scientific law', though there are at least half a dozen others. The article is in desperate need of clarification, especially their first line. (This is always the case with inital drafts.) Does it mean 'A scientific law is an empirical relationship'? Relations have 'domains', and perhaps the use of this term and the fact that laws need only make approximate predictions, would help. This article also needs to cooperate with all others on essentially the same subject. (Search for 'scientific laws' to see a partial list.)
However 'evolution' catches my own use of this term: paleontologists have observed changes in species, both by evolution & by revolution; and this statement (which is usually true) illustrates a law. Darwin's 'explanation' of it illustrates a theory. Laws (found through induction) appear to precede & motivate theories, for theories 'explain' laws. Those laws that are approximate are found to be represented by a theorem with an extra variable or two. This illustrates my current use of 'law', but the use changes with one's profession and one's age. :-)
The use of 'law' was much more common in the past. These laws disappeared as theories enveloped them. Thus the 'Law of Robin' and 'Law of Moutier' were little referenced after being 'explained' by Gibbs's theory of chemical thermodynamics. This may explain why one doesn't encounter laws in biology much today. Plenty remain in thermodynamics; and, although one doesn't refer to common observations as laws such in geology, the observation that 'chains of volcanic islands are often arcs' shows there are plenty of unexplained laws in this science. (See Walter Bucher's 'Deformation of the Earth's Crust'.)
Note that two 'laws' invoving heat & work can be combined to found the 'theory of classical thermodynamics'; so, distinguishing a law as offering descriptions and theories as offering explanations has problems. I used 'scientific explanation' above because all other scientists do. I've had great problems, however, defining 'explanation' objectively. Theories are tested by testing their predictions; so distinguishing a law from a theorem by 'explanation' doesn't seem accurate. Both laws and theorems make predictions, though predictions made by laws seem a bit lax. There appear to be two actual differences between a law and a theorem: (1) a law can fail now & then, and (2) a law is a predictive statement that stands by itself: it is not a sentence in a scientific theory.
These are personal opinions and don't describe a consensus. Geologist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This looks good to me. It would help to see if the NAS describes it in any of their publications to get their take on it. Truth and proof only are applicable in logic and mathematics, as far as I know, and do not appear really in science (except when doing something that involves math or logic, like trying to decide "does this prediction of this theory agree with the observation or not, within some tolerance etc").--Filll (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I should be very surprised if the NAS ever prescribes a philosophy of science, because every scientist appears to have his or her own. 'Truth' has many meanings in science, though most scientists (I'm told) are positivists, as I am. To us, 'truth' is applicable only to a theory, where it means freedom from contradiction. This is Tarski's definition of truth, and it is the same in logic & mathematics. Truth as 'freedom from contradiction' is consistent with scientific methodology, which we all agree upon. However, the 'realists' are seeking absolute, philosophical truth through science - something most of use consider impossible. 'Realism', in the positivist opinion, confuses 'subjective' with 'objective', 'science with 'religion'. All scientists, however, share a common methodology. Methodology has a consensus, and this defines science; but philosophies differ greatly.
A 'Fact' differs from 'truth' in that it is completely objective: that crystals of quartz and feldspar touch one another in a granite all agree upon. Every current theory is 'true', which is why these are still viable. However, many may be false tomorrow. When a speaker once referred to the 'theory of plate tectonics', a new, young professor interrupted & said 'plate tectonics is a fact'. To my pleasure, most of the students' jaws dropped. Geologist (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)