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] |
The term law as traditionally used has never meant a basic truth. For
example Boyle's law has never been a law. The usage of law as a basic truth
stems from the attempt to define "The Scientific Method". Along with the
steps of the scientific method came the idea that a hypothesis turns into a
theory, which turns into a law. Both have been thoroughly discredited, and
like it or not the word law is attached to a variety of things some of which
are not fundamental, but generally contain a single relationship or
equation.
Actually Newton's laws can only be used in a limited region, and are not
used in all regions, so they are in the same class as Boyle's law. It is
just that the limitations on them are not so obvious in the beginning
courses.
You can certainly use the term law in the sense you mentioned, but this may
ultimately be confusing to students. That particular definition was
promoted in older texts and is occasionally found in newer ones. Historic
usage is already so strong that it is doubtful that it will change.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
>
> I have come to refer to Kirchoff's Rules instead of Laws, reserving
> the use of Law to stand for a basic 'truth' that cannot be derived
> from a MORE basic truth. i.e. Conservation of Energy and of Charge
> can be used to 'derive' the Loop and Junction 'rules'. 'Rules' are
> handy results of more basic theory. I'm using Theory here to
> represent the 'accepted' explanation rather than the 'proposed but
> not yet accepted' explanation that some would prefer. Theory of
> Evolution and Theory of Relativity are relevant here. These
> could/should be called 'Laws' since they are generally accepted as
> true and not derivable from more basic truths.
>