Re: [Phys-l] nature of science

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> > 1. What is the basic difference between a theory and a law in science?
>
> The differences, if any, are minor and not worth worrying about.
> Scientists use
> words like rule, law, equation, identity, principle, formula, algorithm,
> etc.
> almost interchangeably, to describe the process for making predictions
> (although there are slight variations in connotations).

There are really differences between these words.  But that being said, this
difference is more a matter of common usage, and certainly not worth
discussing as being significant to the nature of science.  One would
certainly not accept an explanation in place of an equation on an exam
question which asks for an equation.  So I think that it may be worthwhile
giving students definitions of these terms, but it should not be done to
have testable items.

The original question comes from the elementary science texts which always
make a big deal about the "scientific method" and try to distill it down to
a series of 5,7... steps.  After this has been done, there is virtually no
rational discussion of NOS in subsequent courses.  The texts were evidently
all written by PHDs so misconceptions about NOS persists in the
universities, and has been blessed by the state curriculums.

Apparently the historians of science agree that there really is no distinct
scientific method, as other disciplines follow the same steps.  Regrettably,
this has been totally lost in all science courses.  Meanwhile the state high
stakes tests require students to answer questions on such false trivia.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX