Re: What are "principles" in science?

[Robert Cohen <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>]

On Monday, June 07, 2004 8:01 PM, Jack Uretsky wrote:

>         I don't know anybody involved in the active pursuit
> of physics, biology, chemistry or the like who would support
> this so-called "traditional picture".  Do you have some
> support for your characterization?  And why is it important
> to have such categories?

I can't speak for Mark Sylvester (to whom Jack was responding)
but here is how I would answer it:

The only reason to define "law" and "theory" is because
that is how they've been used for the most part and so if
you define it differently you'll be misinterpreting their
meaning.

There is a simple way of testing if there is a pattern to
the usage or not.  Provide a list of the first five "things"
called laws and five "things" called theories that come to
mind.  We can then see if there is any pattern.

I used to think that theories became laws.  Then, I did my own
list and a little historical searching and found that none
of my "laws" used to be called "theories".

I think your list, if representative, will, like mind did,
support the following classification: what the scientific
community calls "laws" are typically empirical "descriptions"
of relationships and "theories" are typically models that are
used to "explain" the relationships/observations.

> I have noted that beginning elementary and high school
> teachers, when unsure of their subject matter, tend to
> emphasize names and definitions. I think that i9 because the
> leaqrning of names and definitions is the easiest kind of
> teaching that can be readily measured.  Standardized tests
> are easy to construct for such purposes.

That may be true, but doesn't make the definitions any less
useful or accurate.

On Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:04 AM, Mark Sylvester wrote:

> 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.

This may be splitting hairs but I disagree about Newton's laws
and the "law of gravity".  Although they can be used to
"explain" other relationships, that does not transition them
from "laws" to "theories".  They do not "explain" in the same
sense that the atomic theory explains the properties of
materials.  I know this sounds ambiguous.  Simply put --
the law of gravity doesn't explain why there is gravity; it
only states that the gravitational force is related to mass
and distance.

So what is the big deal?  I admit I never really thought twice
about it until the "creation science" advocates starting
belittling the theory of evolution based on the assertion
that it was "only a theory".

____________________________________________________
Robert Cohen; 570-422-3428; www.esu.edu/~bbq
East Stroudsburg University; E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301