Re: What are "principles" in science?

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

It will not create misconceptions about physical ideas.  However, it is not
really a principle.  I would call it more a definition of chemical change.
Actually it creates a misconception about what science is or is not.  It
elevates mere terminology to appear to be fundamental.  Chemical change is a
classification of a physical process.  Physical change (freezing,
evaporation...) is another classification.  A better term might be rule, as
it then becomes more obvious that the rule is a distinction humans have made
or observed about processes.

Now if the author makes it very obvious that all science is about rules
humans have made to help us make sense of what we observe, then it may not
be destructive.  But in the context of an absolutist view of science, it is
just one more push in the wrong direction.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Does that mean that the quoted principle
> (see below) is wrong?
> Does it mean it will create some student
> misconceptions?
> The principle was quoted from the first chapter
> of a high school chemistry textbook.
> Ludwik Kowalski
>
> > "A  PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER. In a chemical
> > change the atoms in substances are rearranged
> > to make one or more new substances. The result
> > is a change in composition."