I'm a little disappointed that no-one noticed that I was taking Marty's advice and being as clear and unmoving as he told us to be, in my reply to him! He made an untrue statement, and I told him so, with no waffling, no wimping out, no RodneyDangerfielding. :-)
Unfortunately it does come across as jumping down people's throats. Not too friendly, probably counterproductive.
Also note that even if a formula was in the past incorrectly identified as universally applicable, that doesn't mean we should continue to call it a "law" today, when we have discovered limits to its applicability.
Of course, if we agree that a "scientific law" can be as much an approximation as Ohm's "law" or Hooke's "law", then sure, all such useful approximations can be called laws.
I think whether a formula is called a "law" or not has more to do with _when_ it was discovered. There was a time when many such formulas were referred to as laws. Anyone ever done a timeline of these laws? I suspect they mostly stop before 1900.
KC
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2012 9:11 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book
Rally? False?
A quick look online shows many respected sources calling it a "law". Why are you so afraid of the word?
As far as I can tell from an online search and reference to some old texts in my library - like Gounod's Physics, It has been referred to as the "Law of Gravity" for at least a century and a half. It probably goes back further, but I have no sources at hand at the moment.
We have to stop jumping down people's throats when they use words in a slightly different manner than we do. It turns off people just as quickly as a Jehovah's Witness at the door.
Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of Ken Caviness [caviness@southern.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:43 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book
Absolutely false. To call "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" a law is false. It's not even true, we have had a more accurate explanation for gravity since 1916: General Relativity. That too is not a final answer, since it demonstrably disagrees with quantum mechanics.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l