Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] nature of science



Mangala Joshua asked:
1. What is the basic difference between a theory and a law
in science?

to which John Denker responded:
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).

It seems to me that the "Theory of Gravitation" refers to something that
is different from the "Law of Gravitation," at least according to the
way those phrases are typically used nowadays. When I hear "Theory of
Gravitation" I think of relativity and explanations for why there is
gravity whereas when I hear "Law of Gravitation" I think of the inverse
square relationship between the gravitational force and the separation
distance.

My question is: Is there any reason why we call one "law" and the other
"theory" or is it simply because we can't use the same word for both?
If the latter, could we just as well be referring to the inverse square
relationship as the "Theory of Gravitation" if we hadn't already settled
on arbitrarily calling it the "Law of Gravitation" (or visa-versa)?

P.S. I think the original request may have come out of the common
impression that laws are theories that have been proven to be true. Is
there general agreement that this is *not* the case?

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