Re: What are "principles" in science?

[Mark Sylvester <msylvest@XNET.IT>]

Otoh Boyle's Law is easily characterized as an empirical law, and "Newton's
Laws", together with the "Law of Gravity" constitute a theory in the proper
sense, "explaining" as they do, amongst many other  things, Kepler's Laws,
which are again empirical laws, being a (mathematical) generalization from
observation.

We probably can't get rid of the dual sense in the usage of the words law
and theory, but it's worth being aware of them. When someone says that
"Evolution is only a theory" they mean that it's something tentative. I
mean that it's an explanatory framework.

Mark

ùAt 19:29 07/06/04 -0500, John Clement wrote:
> The term law as traditionally used has never meant a basic truth.  For
> example Boyle's law has never been a law.  The usage of law as a basic truth
> stems from the attempt to define "The Scientific Method".  Along with the
> steps of the scientific method came the idea that a hypothesis turns into a
> theory, which turns into a law.  Both have been thoroughly discredited, and
> like it or not the word law is attached to a variety of things some of which
> are not fundamental, but generally contain a single relationship or
> equation.
>
> Actually Newton's laws can only be used in a limited region, and are not
> used in all regions, so they are in the same class as Boyle's law.  It is
> just that the limitations on them are not so obvious in the beginning
> courses.
>
> You can certainly use the term law in the sense you mentioned, but this may
> ultimately be confusing to students.  That particular definition was
> promoted in older texts and is occasionally found in newer ones.  Historic
> usage is already so strong that it is doubtful that it will change.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> >
> > I have come to refer to Kirchoff's Rules instead of Laws, reserving
> > the use of Law to stand for a basic 'truth' that cannot be derived
> > from a MORE basic truth. i.e. Conservation of Energy and of Charge
> > can be used to 'derive' the Loop and Junction 'rules'. 'Rules' are
> > handy results of more basic theory. I'm using Theory here to
> > represent the 'accepted' explanation rather than the 'proposed but
> > not yet accepted' explanation that some would prefer. Theory of
> > Evolution and Theory of Relativity are relevant here. These
> > could/should be called 'Laws' since they are generally accepted as
> > true and not derivable from more basic truths.
> >

Mark Sylvester
UWCAd
Duino Trieste Italy