Re: [Phys-l] nature of science

[jbellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>]

I agree also.  The language of proof is always disturbing to me, as  
is the word belief.  Both of those words end up causing trouble when  
the issue of creationism or ID comes up.

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Mar 20, 2006, at 1:23 AM, David Bowman wrote:

> Regarding BC's vote:
>
> > I vote for RC's initial statement, i.e. a law is a functional
> > statement, e.g. square law capacitor, his example [F = GmM/r^2],
> > Hooke, etc.  And a theory is an explanation.  [This is bare bones.]
>
> Consider the third *law* of thermodynamics.  What is the functional
> statement here?  How is an unattainable limit an equation or
> functional form?
>
> I suspect that maybe the idea of a law is that it is some short
> statement (maybe usually mathematical in form) of some aspect of the
> brute fact way nature is observed to operate.  A law does not attempt
> to explain the behavior; it just succinctly describes it.  I agree
> that a theory is an explanatory framework erected for the purpose of
> explaining some domain of the facts of nature.
>
> David Bowman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l