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] DATA, FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES




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?

While the definition proposed for a fact aligns with common usage in
science, the proposed usage of law does not. Just look at all of things
called laws and in general they are relationships between variables.
Everyone may propose a definition, but to be used it must be accepted by the
community that uses it.

Historically the definition of a law has been taught as something at
variance with the way in which it is actually used. The old definition of
law as a verified theory still appears in many texts, but it is going away
as it is completely out of alignment with actual usage. Come up with a list
of laws, so we can find out how often it is not a relationship between
variables. If there are no counter examples or they are few, then the
definition that I have proposed is the common usage and should stand.

Language is not definable by logical rules, but relies on common agreed on
definitions. Many arguments about "what is" are often just people insisting
their definition is correct and the other person is using it wrong.
Dictionaries now recognize that and are no longer purely prescriptive.

As to imprecise terminology there is no use telling students definitions
that are at odds with how people in the field of study actually use the
terms. What about the historians of science? How do they define the terms
in question, or what definitions have they found tend to be prevalent now?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX