DjTj Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 noted, but even if laws are theories, all theories are not laws;) Every law isn't a theory. For example, "Moore's Law" is an observation, or maybe an approximation, but I don't think anyone would call it Moore's Theory because it's something that we know is wrong. The terms "law" and "theory" are just random labels that people attach to hypotheses that we feel are important - important, but not necessarily true. The point is that "theory" and "law" really have no particular meaning in science. There's no reason to believe a law is any better than a theory, and there are plenty of cases, such as Newton's Laws and Einstein's Theory, where the "theories" are better than the "laws". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 The point is that "theory" and "law" really have no particular meaning in science. a theory is a refined and tested hypothesis and a law is a theory that is widely acepted as fact, has stood the test of time and has undergone much testing with positive results. there is a diference between the two and they both have meaning within science. are you a scientist? im guessing no, therefore how can you vouch for science and make an extreme statement such as "laws and theories have no particular meaning in science." that statement is contradictory to what most scientist srtive for and believe. i think all of you are thinking too hard an need a break;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 a theory is a refined and tested hypothesis and a law is a theory that is widely acepted as fact, has stood the test of time and has undergone much testing with positive results. there is a diference between the two and they both have meaning within science. are you a scientist? im guessing no, therefore how can you vouch for science and make an extreme statement such as "laws and theories have no particular meaning in science." that statement is contradictory to what most scientist srtive for and believe. i think all of you are thinking too hard an need a break;) Why is Moore's Law referred to as a law then, when it is imprecise and everyone knows it can't hold true in the future? Am I a scientist ... that's another word without a clearly defined meaning. Do I hold a Bachelor of Science? Yes I do. Have I conducted research under a grant from the National Science Foundation? Yes I have. Have I been a named co-author of a publication in a scientific journal? Yes I have. Am I currently working as a scientist? No, so I guess I'm not a scientist. However, I'm pretty sure that if you ask most scientists if there is a well-defined difference between a "law" and a "theory" in science, you'll find that most of them say no. There is no clear line, and if you spend any time thinking about it, you will find a host of exceptions. For example, please explain to me why Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect without Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Why is Moore's Law referred to as a law then, when it is imprecise and everyone knows it can't hold true in the future?Am I a scientist ... that's another word without a clearly defined meaning. Do I hold a Bachelor of Science? Yes I do. Have I conducted research under a grant from the National Science Foundation? Yes I have. Have I been a named co-author of a publication in a scientific journal? Yes I have. Am I currently working as a scientist? No, so I guess I'm not a scientist. However, I'm pretty sure that if you ask most scientists if there is a well-defined difference between a "law" and a "theory" in science, you'll find that most of them say no. There is no clear line, and if you spend any time thinking about it, you will find a host of exceptions. For example, please explain to me why Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect without Einstein's Theory of Relativity. it is merley cultral standards that are backwards to the meaning, kind of like an oxymoron for lack of a beter example.edit: im also curious, what did you study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 it is merley cultral standards that are backwards to the meaning, kind of like an oxymoron for lack of a beter example.edit: im also curious, what did you study? I studied Applied Math, so I come at this more from the standpoint of a mathematician, although I spent most of my time in astrophysics labs. In math, I think the word "law" generally is closer to the word "theorem," so things like the law of large numbers or the law of diminishing returns are theorems that can be proven given certain axioms. The word "theory" isn't really used in math at all. In science, it seems like scientists back in the day liked to use the word "law" a lot more often, so Galileo and Newton had laws of gravitation that we still refer to as "laws" because when they were formulated their authors were pretty sure they were the absolute truth. However, scientists in modern times are somewhat more humble so, like Einstein, they tend to use the word "theory" for all of their ideas. Sometimes these are called "principles" (Pauli Exclusion, Heisenberg Uncertanity) or "equations" (Maxwell's, Schroedinger), or even inequalities, relations, distributions, series, or whatever they happen to be. The name has nothing to do with how well accepted it is. Usually if there's a name in front of it and a lot of people are using it, you can assume it's pretty well accepted. You seem to imply that laws are just theories that have been verified by evidence. However, I can't think of any example where a "theory" became a "law" in science. There is no process by which theories turn into laws - it usually just has to do with whatever it was called when it was first published. If it turns out to be wrong, it is forgotten or reduced to an "approximation," if people aren't really sure it might be downgraded to "conjecture," but as far as I can tell, ideas keep their original name of "law" or "theory" regardless of the evidence that may be uncovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 That is because evolution is such a broad theory that it ecompasses a lot and all of those things can be individually tested and are supported as far as we know today. Now is the whole different than the sum of its parts? I would say they are equal. If all of the testable theories check out then indeed evolution itself checks out. Why do you think evolution is something other than all those things brought together.The evolutionary hypothesis including the genesis of life would go something like this (I assume) Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc.. If Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc.. then (insert Miller Ulrey experiment) etc.... now... could you say the same thing with ID? Of course not. ID is in no way testable. Wait so Self Replicating DNA didnt exist and then all of a sudden it did? Because of the way the Earth was changing while it was forming from debris/gravity/heat. You do relize that their experiment started with the words (Believe)... Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system That doesnt sound to me like its very scientific... And how many 1950's experiments have proved to be wrong.. How many experiments from now will be proven wrong in 1000 years... I think saying science is better than ID out of hand is to say my ideas are better than yours. Being a Teacher is better than a fireman or police officer or trash collector.. I think Einstein meant without science there is no further experimentation on the (belief) and without the (belief) we'd never get around to the experiments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 Wait so Self Replicating DNA didnt exist and then all of a sudden it did? I don't know if all of a sudden is the best way to put it, there was a point at which it didn't and a point that it did. Because of the way the Earth was changing while it was forming from debris/gravity/heat. You do relize that their experiment started with the words (Believe)... yeah what's your point? It was based on the theories of how the earth was at that time. That doesnt sound to me like its very scientific... And how many 1950's experiments have proved to be wrong.. How many experiments from now will be proven wrong in 1000 years... are you going to give a reason, or are you just going to say stuff? I think saying science is better than ID out of hand is to say my ideas are better than yours. Being a Teacher is better than a fireman or police officer or trash collector.. No it is like saying science has brought us tangible goods while ID has not. If you aren't into that whole materialistic good stuff then science can't be of much practical benefit to you, and if that's what floats your boat then cool. I think Einstein meant without science there is no further experimentation on the (belief) and without the (belief) we'd never get around to the experiments... First of all, I really have no idea what you are saying, but I will pretend I do for a second. And I really don't understand your point about 1950's experiments, do you want to toss them all out the window or do you want to judge them individually? Well then I would say he is wrong because 93% of scientists have no belief in a God yet they still do. Now if you are talking about general beliefs then I don't know why he would say religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinclair Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 For the proponents of intelligent design (Creationism) I would like you to:1. State you hypothesis 2. Make predictions 3. Name some methods of testing the predictions 4. Show some studies/experiments done that support the hypothesis through empirical testing simple enough right? Do not mention evolution, just state your scientific theory Why do people have to verify what they beleive to you? Just wondering..are you the deciding factor on what one can or cant believe? Just wondered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Why do people have to verify what they beleive to you? Just wondering..are you the deciding factor on what one can or cant believe? Just wondered this is about getting it into schools. if they cannot verify the foundation of their "scientific" theory, then it should not be taught in schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 Why do people have to verify what they beleive to you? Just wondering..are you the deciding factor on what one can or cant believe? Just wondered Why do people have to miss the point? This is about an attempt to equate faith with science. Not personal beliefs. Even if this was what it was about then they don't have to post. I am not holding a gun to their head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Let me make several points. Science doesn't acknowledge achieving a final truth or absolute truth about anything. Forget absolute truth is relation to the scientific notion of what a "law" or "theory" is. If something in the past has once been labeled a "law" or "theory" and subsequently is proven not to meet the critieria of law or theory it still may be "referred to historially" as "Boyle's Law" or "Smith's Theory" just as a means of referencing something. Do not be confused by this. We now know Newton's Law of Gravity to be incorrect but we still might refer to it as Newton's Law and it still serves in some applications, but Newton was essentially wrong about gravity, as Einstein showed. Let me again try to clear up the difference between a law and a theory. A thing is said to be a law when it reports observed phenomena. A thing is said to be a theory when it reports how the phenomena occurs. If water boils at a certain temperature under certain conditions that is a law. If a series of experiments shows why water boils at a certain temperature that is a theory. Neither one are guesses (hypotheses) or conjecture or theories in the usual sense. They are scientific terms of equal value and do not imply absolute truth. Scientific speaking (not just in re to historical referencing), if, in a lab, water stopped boiling at the usual temperative, the old water boiling law would exist no longer. Science is open to that. If it was shown in a lab that part of the reason water boiled at a certain temperature was wrong, the reason for water boiling at a certain temperature or theory of water boiling would be wrong. Science would be open to that. Science is always open to any of its laws and theories being proven wrong. That is how it advances. If Intelligent Design were a science, it would be open to the notion that the universe is not intelligently designed. How active is it in that exploration? Science constantly challenges its most advanced concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 What exactly is so wrong about the statement?There is no such thing as an unbreakable law in science. Science proves nothing with certainty because it relies on inferences and not deductions (though deductions are part of putting together a theory and linking different theories ). Nothing is 100% "Law" is just a word used to describe a theory that is believed to be very strong. It's true that science doesn't pretend to establish absolute truths. Laws and theories are not conceived of as absolute truths by scientists. Laws and Theories fall all the time in science. That is how science progresses. Science proves nothing with certainty for many reasons, not just a relying on one thing or the other. Read Heisenberg (uncertainy principle), also chaos theory, subatomic particle theory, etc. Critics of empiricism itself such as Berkeley and Hume have never been refuted. Scientists know that the scientific method not only does not reveal absolute truth but in all probability cannot reveal absolute truth, ever. In the world of science today, we know that we can not determine by observation the position of any particle in the universe (Heisenberg). With all due respect, "Law" is not a word used to describe a "Theory" that is strong. Please pay attention. People on this site are wedded to the common sense notion that something is first a theory and then later when finally proven a law. That is not how it works in science. Both a "law" and a "theory" in science are proven as far as science ever regards anything as proven. They are "proven" in the sense that they meet all known tests in relation to the scientific methods. In relation to the scientific method there are two kind of knowledge. What happens is one. Why something happens is the other. When science proves something happens, such as water boiling at a particular temperature, it is called a "LAW." When science proves why something happens, why the ozone layer is thinning, it is called a "theory." To be called a "theory," in science, the reason for the ozone layer thinning has to be proven just as solidly as a "Law" must be proven. Otherwise, the theory is not a theory but an hypothesis. A theory is a "proved" hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 a theory is a refined and tested hypothesis and a law is a theory that is widely acepted as fact, has stood the test of time and has undergone much testing with positive results. there is a diference between the two and they both have meaning within science. are you a scientist? im guessing no, therefore how can you vouch for science and make an extreme statement such as "laws and theories have no particular meaning in science." that statement is contradictory to what most scientist srtive for and believe. i think all of you are thinking too hard an need a break;) Skinfan is one hundred percent correct. I do think the use of these two lines makes it clearer: That something happens is a law. The reason that something happens is a theory. And let's add the hyposthesis. The hypothesis is the guess about the reason something happens that is tested and proven as theory (or as correct as science can be at the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 It's true that science doesn't pretend to establish absolute truths. Laws and theories are not conceived of as absolute truths by scientists. Laws and Theories fall all the time in science. That is how science progresses.Science proves nothing with certainty for many reasons, not just a relying on one thing or the other. Read Heisenberg (uncertainy principle), also chaos theory, subatomic particle theory, etc. Critics of empiricism itself such as Berkeley and Hume have never been refuted. Scientists know that the scientific method not only does not reveal absolute truth but in all probability cannot reveal absolute truth, ever. In the world of science today, we know that we can not determine by observation the position of any particle in the universe (Heisenberg). With all due respect, "Law" is not a word used to describe a "Theory" that is strong. Please pay attention. People on this site are wedded to the common sense notion that something is first a theory and then later when finally proven a law. That is not how it works in science. Both a "law" and a "theory" in science are proven as far as science ever regards anything as proven. They are "proven" in the sense that they meet all known tests in relation to the scientific methods. In relation to the scientific method there are two kind of knowledge. What happens is one. Why something happens is the other. When science proves something happens, such as water boiling at a particular temperature, it is called a "LAW." When science proves why something happens, why the ozone layer is thinning, it is called a "theory." To be called a "theory," in science, the reason for the ozone layer thinning has to be proven just as solidly as a "Law" must be proven. Otherwise, the theory is not a theory but an hypothesis. A theory is a "proved" hypothesis. Learn something new everyday, there is definitely a misconception floating around with the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 i know this is off topic, but its been bothering me everytime someone uses the boiling point of water. get it right man! it doesn't always boil at the same temperature, it depends on temperature and pressure.[/rant] i feel much better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 i know this is off topic, but its been bothering me everytime someone uses the boiling point of water. get it right man! it doesn't always boil at the same temperature, it depends on temperature and pressure.[/rant]i feel much better True. I simplified for convenience. My father was fishing boat captain and could tell the pressure by the pitch of the noise of the tea kettle when the tea was brought to a boil. He could also tell if it was snowing outside just by watching the fire, or so he said. This was called "treading" the snow. I know this one is way off topic, but he could also tell how far a storm was away while lying in a cot below. Said it was the combination of the color of the lantern's flame and the length of the approaching swells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 i know this is off topic, but its been bothering me everytime someone uses the boiling point of water. get it right man! it doesn't always boil at the same temperature, it depends on temperature and pressure.[/rant]i feel much better A little Russian named Professor Zilberberg would be very proud of you He was my thermodynamics professor and he would ALWAYS say water boils at 100 degrees centegrade AT 1 atmosphere, you can NOT described the state without knowing both Crazy, great post on the difference between theory and law, spot on. I will say though the unification theory will hopefully help us in defining the "ultimate law", but there is still a LOT of work that needs to be done. A multi-dimensional space smaller then a Plank length? Strange stuff indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.