Except the very few laws. Everything else is labeled theory.
A theory is NOT the same thing as a hypothesis. Yes its not entirely certain. But something doesn't become a theory until there is an overwhelming amount of evidense in support of it. Yes, theories get disproven occationally in the scientific sense, or slightly altered, becuase all it takes to disprove it is one counter example. But if something reaches theory point it means we've seen a lot of examples and they all hold to the theory.
A hypothesis is an idea that doesn't have evidense to support it yet. It's something that they are working on.
That's the scientific stand point.
Lately politics, especially surrounding the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution, have been trying to make theories sound like hypothesis. This would be becuase those two theories contradict a hell of a lot of religious views. The common quote I hear, mostly pertaining to evolution is "it's just a theory, it's not proven." Duh. Nothing is ever proven, that's not how science works. It's always a theory, not proven, becuase one counter example could disprove it. Or change it. However, if its a theory it means there's a crapload of evidense backing it up.
Science deals with what we can observe. What we can test. And what we can recreate. Faith, belief, they have NOTHING to do with it. So my message to the uber religious folks who want to do away with science like evolution and the big bang is this (not aimed at any one at hatrack): You want to do that, fine. But you better chuck your electric power too. Electricity is just another scientific theory. And dump your computers, they run on electricity. And your air conditioning/heating. Better not go to hospitals or take medicine from doctors, all scientific theories. Oh and better walk or ride horses. The things around which bikes, cars, planes and such are designed are scientific theories.
Now if you want to argue these two theories based on their scientific merits, go for it. Scientists do it all the time, its one of the ways science advances. But keep faith, religion, and belief the hell out of it.
*****This rant was not aimed at anyone at hatrack, rather it was inspired by a number of news articles and discussions I've run across of late. That little nitpick has been driving me nuts.*****
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is the second time I've had to say this tonight. Science doesn't "prove" anything. It simply tests to see if an idea isn't true. If enough tests do not prove an idea false, then those tests are accumulated evidence that it is probably a valid idea.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your making a mistake comparing electicity to the big bang. There's a very big difference between something that all evidence overwhelmingly supports and something that's one of several possible solutions, and whose the merits are still being hashed out and refined.
You hear very little debate about electricity.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is proven that by arranging copper and zinc in a certain relationship, you can produce quite a nasty shock to the human nervous system. It is not proven that this is due to little particles called electrons, which like to be at the lower electric potential. It is merely 99.99999999% certain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your making a mistake comparing electicity to the big bang. There's a very big difference between something that all evidence overwhelmingly supports and something that's one of several possible solutions, and whose the merits are still being hashed out and refined.
You hear very little debate about electricity.
Its still a theory, just as evolution and the big bang are. Maybe there's more evidense for it and its more widely accepted cause its rather handy, rather obviously works in a way that even a total moron can see and doesn't challenge any religious beliefs. But its still a theory just the same as evolution and the big bang.
There is actually quite a bit of evidense for the big bang. The debate is mostly about how to interpret that evidense. The question isn't whether the big bang happened at all, science is fair certain something of that nature happened. The debate is about other things such as what is happening now, what caused the big bang, is it part of a cycle or a freak incident, and such.
quote:My first year chemistry teacher's reply to this "Science doesn't prove anything" thing was simply, "Of course I can't prove to you that this is true, but you'd better convince yourself that it is before the exam comes around."
Thats the point. Science doesn't prove anything, but if its theory its as good as proven. Its as close as science can come. Some theories have more evidense than others yes, but they all have a whole lot of evidense.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and no. We're getting back to the fact that not all theories were created equally. If you're trying to tell me that The Big Bang is as widely studied, supported, and accepted as electric potential, I'm going to laugh at you.
Edit: Which isn't to say that I don't think the big bang happened, nor that I think this insistance that's it's always mentioned in the same breath as the word "theory" isn't grating, but if you're going to be arguing about the application of science, you're better served to check your hyperbole at the door.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my message to the uber religious folks who want to do away with science like evolution and the big bang is this (not aimed at any one at hatrack): You want to do that, fine. But you better chuck your electric power too. Electricity is just another scientific theory. And dump your computers, they run on electricity. And your air conditioning/heating. Better not go to hospitals or take medicine from doctors, all scientific theories. Oh and better walk or ride horses.
Now that's just silly, in addition to being insulting. You are comparing doubt in the big bang, which to be able to see and understand convincing evidence of requires a highly specialized education, to doubt in air conditioning which everybody in the first world can observe and feel?
Also, bear in mind that electricity and medicine do not require any scientific theory to develop. Every culture has had some sort of healing skills, not only the ones with scientists. Ancient batteries have been unearthed in the middle east (the Baghdad battery), and there is some that some greek temples harnessed electricity acquired from lightning rods.
edit: Or what Bob said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Final Proven Statement ^ Experimentation ^ Refine the Idea ^ Experimentatino ^ Hypothesis
quote:Hypothesis - a statement that uses a few observations - an idea based on observations without experimental proof Theory - uses many observations and has loads of experimental proof - can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships - flexible enough to be modified if new data/proof introduced Law - stands the test of time, often without change - experimentally proven over and over - can create true predictions for different situations - has uniformity and is universal
posted
And no, that wasn't a typo. I really meant to say Experimentatino. It's like Experimentation but not quite as good.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the simple "hypothesis->experimentation->proven statement" version of the scientific method, while very useful for figuring out what will happen, doesn't translate pefectly for figuring out what did happen
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to Biology for Kids or the National Academy of Sciences, I'll take Biology for Kids every time. I don't even think the National Academy of Sciences *knows* about Experimentatino.
That's how far behind they are.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:f you're trying to tell me that The Big Bang is as widely studied, supported, and accepted as electric potential, I'm going to laugh at you.
Once its a theory, its a theory. There are still things about electricity we don't understand. Quite a few actually. We understand it well enough to make it work for us, and that may make it seem far more established than something like the Big Bang where there is no engineering advantage to learning about it.
The fact of the matter is, we know a hell of a lot more about the Big Bang than the average person suspects. And we know far less about electricity than we might think. We have no clue what the electromagnetic force is. Or how it travels so fast. Is it related to gravity? The equations look awful similar, they differ only by a constant as it were (a huge constant, but just a constant nonethe less). There are many scientists that hypothesize that it is related to gravity. But there isn't any evidense yet. And we don't know. We don't really know much about the electron either. The little things are awfully slippery. They seem to move from one place to another with out ever travelling through the space between. What the hell? But far as we can tell, that's what happens.
So yes, I will hold that electricity and the big bang are theories about both of which there are many questions.
The only reason we hear more about the big bang is that it contradicts peoples religious views and there is no practical offshoot of it that people can watch working every day. But there is a lot of uncertainty linked to both theories (certain aspects of them we don't understand). There is tons of evidense for the existance of both, however.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celaeno: A question: What society doesn't (or didn't) have scientists?
Anybody living before 1600, and most of the world until the twentieth century; today, most of Africa and the Middle East. Possibly you are thinking of engineers, astrologers, and suchlike rabble; a completely different thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
*cough* In that past engineers and scientists went there own way. Today they are often very closely linked. Engineers just take the things scientists come up with with practical uses and make use of them. Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Science sprung from philosophy. I would call most of the ancient philosophers scientists.
Absolutely not.
What Aristotle did was philosophy, but it was not science in any sense.
He taught that larger objects accelerate toward the earth faster than light objects. He didn't do any experiments to see if his hypothesis was correct, even though it is very easy to do so.
It wasn't until Galileo did the experiment centuries later that it was proven to be false.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
He was a mathematician and engineer. Not the same as a scientist. In mathematics, things can be proven. But math is more abstract than science and doesn't always relate directly to the real world. And we've already discussed about engineers are different from scientists.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will accept your dismissal of Aristotle. But seriously, what about Democritus?
And come on, Alcon. No disrespect, but Archimedes wasn't just a mathematician and an engineer. He was also a physicist.
From wikipedia:
quote:Archimedes is probably also the first mathematical physicist on record, and the best before Galileo and Newton. He invented the field of statics, enunciated the law of the lever, the law of equilibrium of fluids and the law of buoyancy. (He famously discovered the latter when he was asked to determine whether a crown had been made of pure gold, or gold adulterated with silver; he realized that the rise in the water level when it was immersed would be equal to the volume of the crown, and the decrease in the weight of the crown would be in proportion; he could then compare those with the values of an equal weight of pure gold). He was the first to identify the concept of center of gravity, and he found the centers of gravity of various geometric figures, assuming uniform density in their interiors, including triangles, paraboloids, and hemispheres. Using only ancient Greek geometry, he also gave the equilibrium positions of floating sections of paraboloids as a function of their height, a feat that would be taxing to a modern physicist using calculus.
quote:The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
quote:Archimedes (Greek: Αρχιμηδης ) (287 BC–212 BC) was an ancient Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, astronomer and philosopher born in the seaport colony of Syracuse. He is considered by some math historians to be one of history's greatest mathematicians.
There we've got a tie-in to whether or not we can call a guy like Archimedes a scientist. Sure, technically.
I also find that it is absolutely fair to call a guy like Archimedes a scientist on principle. An engineer, a physicist, a mathematician, an astronomer, and a philosopher all at once, dabbling into a lot of inquiry, scientific and non-scientific alike. Since the requisite to be called a scientist is that you must have an expertise in any scientific endeavor/practice/trade/field of study, be that astronomy or engineering or whatever, I'd say he classifies easily, be it literally or from a more gestalt perspective.
Democritus was much more further removed from the sciences, but engaged in distant and wildly postulative hypothetical conceptualization. A big part of science is theoretical explanation of phenomena, so we can't find such ready delineation between scientific thought and philosophical thought.
... especially given that the scientific method is in itself a philosophy, but there's no need to stretch the issue -- the base of it is Celaeno is absolutely not incorrect when she calls Archimedes a scientist, as there are multiple justifications for this application of terminology that she can work with.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.
And yes an engineer applies scientific principles but is not a scientist.
It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists. They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized. That is part of science, but not all of it. And they were frequently very very wrong.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Except the very few laws. Everything else is labeled theory.
Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps the reason some people stress THEORY is because so many people incorrectly treat those theories as laws?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.
According to Sam's personal (and referenced) definitions of "scientist" and "engineering," the ancient thinkers in question were, in fact, scientists. While I recognize that your argument is also true based on your own definitions, what makes Sam's far more convincing are references.
If you could offer a definition from a reasonably credible source that a scientist is ONLY a person who, in addition to meeting the aforementioned requirements, performs experiments, you'd be more convincing.
quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists
...proof? This certainly hasn't held true amongst the members of the scientific community I'm familiar with, which includes four members of the lead malaria research team at the UW Medical Center. They would laugh uproariously at your suggestion that the ancient thinkers in question were not scientists.
quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists. They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized. That is part of science, but not all of it. And they were frequently very very wrong.
Not a part of modern science, but would you call Greek soldiers "pre-soldiers" because their military training didn't include modern day standards?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps the reason some people stress THEORY is because so many people incorrectly treat those theories as laws?
That's the point. Except you reversed it. Laws are proven. Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven. That's the point, they aren't all that incorrect to treat theories as laws. In fact the two are so close in science that they are often used interchangeably. IE the Law/Theory of Special Relativity.
Here's a wikipedia list of science laws. Its wikipedia, so I wouldn't entirely trust it but its accurate enough and will give you an idea of what tends to make law and what doesn't.
As you can see, the ones labelled law are mathematical in nature. They can be 'proved' through mathematics. Thats the only that that differs them from theories.
To put it very bluntly:
Science theory: mostly certain, almost positive, very close to proven. As close to proven as it comes with out being proven. Lots and lots of evidense in support of it, none contradicting.
Political theory: just an idea, not proven at all.
Thats why there's a problem with folks emphasizing theory in the political spectrum, cause it gives the wrong impression. It means a different thing than in the science perspective.
quote:The fact of the matter is, we know a hell of a lot more about the Big Bang than the average person suspects.
OK, I'll show my ignorance here. What supports do we have for the Big Bang? The only thing I can remember from science classes years ago is that everything in the universe seems to be moving outward from a central point.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of a theory gets scientific grounding in more than one field, does that make it a law? I'm doing a study project at the moment and that's either applicable to theories becoming laws or a hypothesis becoming a theory. Here's the exact question if anyone wants it:
A ________ becomes a _______ when it seems to explain a lot of diverse phenomena in the same field.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.
quote:And yes an engineer applies scientific principles but is not a scientist.
I've demonstrated otherwise through reference and methodology; now it is your turn to establish this as anything more than a personal conviction.
quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists.
You are absolutely wrong. I shall connect you to some pages that demonstrate that this is an untrue establishment.
Encyclopedia Britannica describes him as a scientist, but I can't link you to the member-only section. Fortunately, the student encyclopedia section of the site is freely accessable, so have that as a substitute:
quote:(287–212 BC). The first scientist to recognize and use the power of the lever was Archimedes. This gifted Greek mathematician and inventor once said, “Give me a place to stand and rest my lever on, and I can move the Earth.” He also invented the compound pulley and Archimedes'screw. Archimedes was a brilliant mathematician who helped develop the science of geometry. He discovered the relation between the surface area and volume of a sphere and those of its circumscribing cylinder. (See also Geometry; Mechanics.)
Anyway, there are plenty more examples, but let's try an example by which I can demonstrate the weight of my position.
Do two google searches, in quotes for exact terms. Do them in order, too, and see what kind of sources they give.
"archimedes was a scientist"
"archimedes was not a scientist"
quote:They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized.
The bolded section, which I have highlighted, is absolutely incorrect. One has to operate on a very abstrusely ignorant perception of the works of the great philosophers to conclude that they never tested or experimented!
I don't mean to disrespect, but your position is very silly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.
According to Sam's personal (and referenced) definitions of "scientist" and "engineering," the ancient thinkers in question were, in fact, scientists. While I recognize that your argument is also true based on your own definitions, what makes Sam's far more convincing are references.
If you could offer a definition from a reasonably credible source that a scientist is ONLY a person who, in addition to meeting the aforementioned requirements, performs experiments, you'd be more convincing.
quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists
...proof? This certainly hasn't held true amongst the members of the scientific community I'm familiar with, which includes four members of the lead malaria research team at the UW Medical Center. They would laugh uproariously at your suggestion that the ancient thinkers in question were not scientists.
quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists. They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized. That is part of science, but not all of it. And they were frequently very very wrong.
Not a part of modern science, but would you call Greek soldiers "pre-soldiers" because their military training didn't include modern day standards?
The dictionary reference definition is not very helpful in this matter, it is self referencing.
quote:A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
That was the definition he offered. Reworded and shortened it comes to this:
A person knowing a lot about a science.
Sorry, doesn't cut it. A lot of people who are not scientists know alot about various fields of science. What differentiates a physist from an engineer (both must know alot about physics) is that the physist studies physics and performs experiments, while the engineer just applies physics.
quote:Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth.
...
Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
Alternately take a look in any high school history book or science book. Go to the section on the history of science and you will see the early philosophers called just that, philosophers. To be a scientist, you must practice the scientific method, which is hypothesize, come up with a way to test it, then test it. Tests are done through experiments or studies.
The ancient philosophers did not employ the empiricle scientific method. Don't get me wrong, they were excellent mathematicians, wonderful observers, but they never tested their ideas in a a thurough empiricle way. Never ran any experiments. They were philosophers, the precursers to scientists, but not scientists.
You go ask those biologists. See what they say.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Off the top of my head: All actions have a reaction; The Law of Gravity; Law of Motion; Lw of Magentism; First Law of Thermodynamics. And that's just the one's I can come up with off the top of my head, without knowing the scientists that came up with them.Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alternately take a look in any high school history book or science book. Go to the section on the history of science and you will see the early philosophers called just that, philosophers. To be a scientist, you must practice the scientific method, which is hypothesize, come up with a way to test it, then test it. Tests are done through experiments or studies.
Your criteria is not correct. You can research this on your own.
quote:the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well.
See, things other than pure and contemporary codified scientific methodology can fall under the spectre of scientific work. This is accepted, historically.
quote:Here's a wikipedia list of science laws. Its wikipedia, so I wouldn't entirely trust it but its accurate enough and will give you an idea of what tends to make law and what doesn't.
Can you reference a source that you DO trust?
Actually, it doesn't matter, I'll use yours. Here's what Wikipedia says about scientists.
quote:A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research. William Whewell coined the word in 1833 at the request of the poet Coleridge. Before that, it had been "natural philosopher" or "man of science". Scientists have an innate desire to understand the world (and Universe), often from childhood. At one time science was not in the public eye, though technology has continually modified human existence. Now the activity of scientists, especially those in medicine, is widely known.
Scientists include theoreticians who never do experiments and experimentalists who do not do theory.
quote:See, things other than pure and contemporary codified scientific methodology can fall under the spectre of scientific work. This is accepted, historically.
Fine. Obviously these things I was taught in high school history and science classes (and not just me, a bunch of the other students in my dorm, I just checked)... I say 'taught' they were bloody drilled into my fracking head which is why I've been so stubborn about them, have either been reconsidered or were never right in the first place. It doesn't matter, I don't really care. I will cede the point for now, becuase that is not my main point nor the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is two pronged.
1) theory in science means something completely different than it does in common usage or in politics. Which is why the insitance upon emphasizing it is problematic.
2) faith and belief has no place in the empiricle sciences, which are based upon experimentation and observation.
quote:Can you reference a source that you DO trust?
Not this late at night, not on short notice, and not when the library is closed Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's the point. Except you reversed it. Laws are proven. Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven. That's the point, they aren't all that incorrect to treat theories as laws. In fact the two are so close in science that they are often used interchangeably. IE the Law/Theory of Special Relativity.
Also have to mention that your definition of a scientific law versus a scientific theory isn't exactly correct.
John Rennie, of SciAm:
quote:Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
quote:1) theory in science means something completely different than it does in common usage or in politics. Which is why the insitance upon emphasizing it is problematic.
In the public evolution debate, specifically calling up evolution's status as a 'theory' is a tactic designed to influence lay public perception of evolutionary understandings. The creationist/ID supporters who have been in the debate for any period of time at all have been corrected on this issue zillions of times, but continue to rely on propogating the 'evolution is "only" a theory' concept. It's annoying, because the issue should have been dead long ago.
posted
Oh, here's the problem. I'm not thinking of Archemedies, I'm thinking of all the other greeks of the time often mistakenly called scientists. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc. Not scientist.
Archemedies is. He experimented. So, point doubly ceded. *bows humbly* in reference to Archemedies I was wrong.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:That's the point. Except you reversed it. Laws are proven. Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven. That's the point, they aren't all that incorrect to treat theories as laws. In fact the two are so close in science that they are often used interchangeably. IE the Law/Theory of Special Relativity.
Also have to mention that your definition of a scientific law versus a scientific theory isn't exactly correct.
John Rennie, of SciAm:
quote:Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
Umm... not quite. That doesn't seem to be entirely decided upon in the scientific community. Theory and law are... well... I'll give you a couple of quotes.
From The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands:
quote:The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth". But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations - to get at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
From Wikipedia:
quote:A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. However, there are no strict guidelines as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law.
quote:Any and every scientific law is open to being challenged, and is sometimes completely replaced by laws that have a greater domain of validity. Hence the changing and evolving nature of scientific truths: scientific laws - as realized by the practitioners of science - grow and change to encompass increasing domains of phenomenon and with a greater degree of accuracy. An explanation with only a limited range of applicability is usually called a model. A postulate that receives some experimental verification is called a principle. Explanations of greater validity are termed as theories, and these tend to be more detailed than models and have greater predictive power. The term law is usually reserved for those theories that have been experimentally verified, such as the law of energy conservation and so on.
quote:A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
quote: A scientific law is a rule or a set of rules which generalizes the behavior of some phenomenon in nature. For example, Newton's First Law of Motion states that every object either remains at rest or in continuous motion with constant speed unless acted upon by a force. A scientific law is subjected to rigorous testing by a variety of experiments which are repeated many times. A valid scientific law can accurately predict natural phenomena. For example, Newton's First Law of Motion predicts that a student wearing in-line skates coasting with constant speed atop a flat, horizontal, friction-free surface would continue forever if there were no outside forces acting on the skates. If we knew the student's speed, we could predict how far the student would travel in a given amount of time. For example, if moving with a constant speed of 2 m/s for 5 sec, how far would the student move? Here we appeal to Newton's First Law, which stated algebraically is the familiar expression, distance = speed x time or d = vt.
A theory , as opposed to a scientific law, is usually not as thoroughly tested by experiments. Either a law or a theory can sometimes explain the actual cause of the phenomenon. However, neither a law nor a theory needs to specify a cause of phenomena in nature to be considered successful. Rather to become acceptable to the community of scientists as scientific laws and theories, whether in the form of statements or algebraic expressions, the laws and theories must merely be capable of reliable predictions of natural phenomena. Scientific inquiry in the physical sciences generally proceeds not with hypothesis testing, but by developing and refining "models".
I could keep going, there are more in my current google search. Each with its own idea on what hypothesis, theory, and law are. Some lump theory and law together. Some keep them separate. Some say law can never become theory, some say a law is simply a theory with even more evidense and support. Some give a specific point at which theory becomes law, others say its undefined.
My claim that they are used interchangably isn't entirely correct. But its not entirely incorrect either. They are used interchangably. And no one can seem to agree upon whether or not doing so is correct.
What they do agree upon is that the scientific definition of a theory is different than the common usage. That a theory has experimental support and that it is not something to be brushed aside as "merely a theory".
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
