Re: [Phys-l] nature of science

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

At 01:19 PM 3/19/2006, Robert Cohen,  you wrote in answer to
> Mangala Joshua's question:
> > 1. What is the basic difference between a theory and a law
> > in science?

> ///
> It seems to me that the "Theory of Gravitation" refers to something that
> is different from the "Law of Gravitation," at least according to the
> way those phrases are typically used nowadays.  When I hear "Theory of
> Gravitation" I think of relativity and explanations for why there is
> gravity whereas when I hear "Law of Gravitation" I think of the inverse
> square relationship between the gravitational force and the separation
> distance.
>
> My question is: Is there any reason why we call one "law" and the other
> "theory" or is it simply because we can't use the same word for both?
> If the latter, could we just as well be referring to the inverse square
> relationship as the "Theory of Gravitation" if we hadn't already settled
> on arbitrarily calling it the "Law of Gravitation" (or visa-versa)?
>
> P.S. I think the original request may have come out of the common
> impression that laws are theories that have been proven to be true.  Is
> there general agreement that this is *not* the case?
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Robert Cohen, Chair, Department of Physics


Since Robert asked, I will offer my response - the idea of Laws
in science is reactionary - in that it conveys the idea that there
are some scientific  statements one can make that are cast in stone,
rather than uttered as provisional.

The idea of "Laws" goes together with the picture of scientists
who seek "Truth" - another unhappy construction.


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!