Re: [Phys-l] nature of science

["David Bowman" <David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu>]

Regarding BC's vote:

> I vote for RC's initial statement, i.e. a law is a functional
> statement, e.g. square law capacitor, his example [F = GmM/r^2],
> Hooke, etc.  And a theory is an explanation.  [This is bare bones.]

Consider the third *law* of thermodynamics.  What is the functional
statement here?  How is an unattainable limit an equation or
functional form?

I suspect that maybe the idea of a law is that it is some short
statement (maybe usually mathematical in form) of some aspect of the
brute fact way nature is observed to operate.  A law does not attempt
to explain the behavior; it just succinctly describes it.  I agree
that a theory is an explanatory framework erected for the purpose of
explaining some domain of the facts of nature.

David Bowman