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




> Sometimes they may be considered laws, but sometimes not.

Taking this in context, I believe what is intended by this sentence is
"Sometimes they may be considered accurate, but sometimes not." The
usage of "law" here would then be consistent with

> The term law would seem to imply that it is absolute,

But of course Hooke's law famously demonstrates that this is not
consistent with normal usage -- as John explicitly states.

My illustration of laws is to point out that the term has historically been
used very inconsistently. But the one common thing in physics is that all
of our laws are relationships between variables. And one can not get a
relationship without having a number of data points. So saying there is a
relationship implies that it is a summary of data.

I think the statement that it is a relationship is extremely useful. When
you tell this to students it may take away the mystique that they have built
up around the word law. This mystique has been actively taught by various
teachers and books that have told them that theories become laws after being
proven or verified. At least in physics one can generalize the data/facts
without coming up with an equation, and such generalizations to my knowledge
are not called laws.

As to the evolution argument, Evolution is a theory which provides
mechanisms for the archeological fact that there was change over time of the
various species. One could call that archeological fact evolution, but I
think that being confrontational by calling Evolution a fact is not a
productive strategy. I have heard from teachers that students will often
accept the term change over time, while some will strongly object to
Evolution. Of course they have been indoctrinated to object to Evolution,
but since they don't really know what is, changing the terminology is a good
end run around the problem. The author of the NYTimes article pointed out
that evolution is a historical fact, but Evolution is not necessarily a
scientific fact. The article informs the reader about what they might like
in the book, and the author is obviously scientifically trained. One might
disagree with the fact/theory concept the author uses, but it is reasonable
and well within the mainstream of scientific thought.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX