Re: [Phys-l] DATA, FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Oct 18, 2009, at 2:40 PM, John Clement wrote:

> > What follows was prompted by Nicholas Wade's New York Times Book
> > Review (October 11, 2009). My comment is about scientific DATA,  
> > FACTS,
> > LAWS, THEORIES, ETC. I hope this will be useful. Distinctions between
> > DATA and FACTS, or between LAWS and THEORIES are important. Comments,
> > as always, will be appreciated.
> >
> > c) A LAW is a generalization of facts. I am thinking about Kepler's
> > Laws (how planets move), about Mendeleyev's Law (how elements are
> > ordered in a chart), Faraday's Law   (how changing currents can be
> > induced), etc.
> >
> > d) A THEORY is an explanation of a law. I am thinking about Newton's
> > gravitational theory, about Maxwell's equations, about quantum
> > mechanics, about Heizenberg's principle, etc. Distinctions between
> > laws and theories (and between facts and theories) are worth
> > recognizing. Unfortunately, this is not always done.
>
> I would assume the article in question is "Evolution All Around"  
> criticizing
> the book " THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH The Evidence for Evolution"
> Richard Dawkins.
>
> 1) The review is quite reasonable and actually only differentiates  
> between
> theories and facts.  It says that Dawkins strays into saying  
> evolution is a
> fact and not a theory or model.  This looks like a very reasonable  
> criticism
> of Dawkins.  As far as I can see it makes no general definitions of  
> the
> other words.
>
> 2) As to a law being a generalization of facts, that is not exactly  
> how the
> term is used.  Virtually all laws are equations or relationships  
> which may
> be either general or specific.  If you look at all of the laws they  
> are
> generally equations such as Boyle's law, Newton's laws...  Sometimes  
> the
> equation is merely implied as a statement of a principle.
>
> 3) A theory is a consistent framework for relating various laws and  
> facts so
> that one can make predictions about unknown situations.  Sometimes you
> can also call a theory a model.  But in no sense is it an  
> explanation.  The
> theory itself can often not be explained, but it can be used to  
> generate
> predictions.  If it can be explained that would be in terms of another
> theory and eventually you get to postulates or assumptions which  
> have no
> explanations, and are sometimes do not even look reasonable, but  
> they work.
>
> 4) . . .

I numbered the paragraphs and eliminated the last one; it has nothing  
to do with the topic of our thread. The above message is a good  
illustration of disagreements resulting from inprecise terminology. My  
terminology of the four basic terms (data, facts, laws and  
explanations) has been introduced.; let me stick to it.

1) Evolution is a theory explaining many facts recognized by  
biologists. Dawkins, on the other hand, according to the above, states  
that evolution is a fact. Yes, I know that the term ‘fact’ can refer  
to different things in common language. That is why scientists must  
first agree on definitions of basic terms.

2) This paragraph is another illustration of the same thing. I suggest  
that the term “fact” should refer to validated data  (accepted by most  
practitioners), not to anything else. Likewise, I suggest that the  
term  “law” refers to nothing else than a generalizations of facts.

What is wrong with this approach? How else can we deal with imprecise  
terminology of common language? As I already mentioned, some people  
use the words “force,” “energy,” and “power” interchangeably. As  
physicists we introduced precise definitions of these terms to  
students, and we try to stick to these definitions. What is wrong with  
assigning precise meaning to the four concepts needed to discuss  
scientific validations?

P.S.
Two questions should probably be answered:

a) Do we need precise definitions of basic words used to discuss  
scientific validations?
b) Are the four concepts i identified (by assigning specific four  
words to them) indeed essential, as far as scientific validation is  
concerned?
c) Are the words assigned to these concepts appropriate? If not then  
what are better words?
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher
5 Horizon Road, Apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist.

                                            Food for thought:  
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Updated links  to his selected publications are at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/  ,   http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html 
  and  http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html