I think that brings it full circle.
I found it odd that the chemistry took a stand to state the difference between a theory and a law so definitively (if you don't recall, here is a paraphrased statement: a theory explains how things might be related, a law uses mathematical models to show relationships). These terms don't have a generally agreed upon definition among teachers, professors, or research scientists. The book goes the extra step of stating the commonly used phrase of a theory becoming a law is false. To stand up and make the claim seems odd.
What made that doubly odd, in my mind, is was that the book states there is no one scientific method. There are some common traits among different approaches, but there is no one singular accepted method.
I found it odd that the book would so clearly state some true, but uncommon items about 'the' scientific method, then take such a big stumble on the theory and law statements.
Have a good one.
Paul.
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of LaMontagne, Bob [RLAMONT@providence.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:11 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