Laws Are Subject To Change As Well, Right?

[Kahalachan]

I'm pretty sure Newton's Law of F = MA was changed after Einstein to include the speed of light as a variable.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And the point of this topic is to say laws aren't any better than theories.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, right, it no longer makes sense to talk about forces in terms of F=ma in quantum mechanics or general relativity. It's not really so much that F=ma is wrong, but rather that the statement just doesn't have a solid meaning in the context of these newer theories.

 

[Kahalachan]

OK cool. That's what I figured.

It seems we associate scientific law and theory in the colloquial sense. Laws can't be broken and theories are just guesses. But laws can change and theories are much better than guesses.

 

[Chalnoth]

OK cool. That's what I figured.

It seems we associate scientific law and theory in the colloquial sense. Laws can't be broken and theories are just guesses. But laws can change and theories are much better than guesses.

In science theory and law basically come to the same thing. There's no good reason to draw a distinction between the two.

 

[Kahalachan]

I thought laws were simpler and implied mathematical relationships.

Also they imply some universality. Like the tempo of evolution changes, what is evolved changes, etc.

Evolution isn't constant and the same in all cases, hence it is a complex theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

I just don't think there's any clear distinction. The laws of thermodynamics, for example, are still called laws even though we know they aren't exact, and can be very complex in how they are applied to various situations.

 

[JohnR7]

Laws Are Subject To Change As Well, Right?

The laws of God do not change, they have remained the same from the beginning.
But man seems to be growing in his understanding of those laws. As Daniel said: Knowledge shall increase.

Daniel 12:4
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

 

[Dragar]

The word 'laws' in this context is mostly a hold-over from an earlier time.

We've realised since that 'law' is too definite, too final - almost every law in physics has been corrected or is (like the Laws of Thermodynamics) not exact. And so now we talk about theories. It's a concession that Nature is a lot more tricky to understand than first appeared.

 

[Ondoher]

I'm pretty sure Newton's Law of F = MA was changed after Einstein to include the speed of light as a variable.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And the point of this topic is to say laws aren't any better than theories.

Laws are descriptive generalizations about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. As such, if we find that our generalizations are inaccurate, the law is flawed. We must then either change the description, or the circumstances under which it applies. For example, under many circumstances, Newton's descriptions work fine.

This contrasts with a theory, which is an explanatory framework for a class of observations. One of the things that theories do is to explain the laws that apply to its domain.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Laws are descriptive generalizations about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. As such, if we find that our generalizations are inaccurate, the law is flawed. We must then either change the description, or the circumstances under which it applies. Gor example, under many circumstances, Newton's descriptions work fine.

This contrasts with a theory, which is an explanatory framework for a class of observations. One of the things that theories do is to explain the laws that apply to its domain.

could you reference a modern philosopher of science that discusses this distinction between theory and law please?
i've taken a number of classes on the issue and i thought that the term is depreciated and a holdover from an earlier age (as was put so well above), however i'd be interested in reading what your source for this has to say on the issues.
tia.

 

[Chalnoth]

I haven't heard of any new scientific laws for something like a hundred years, so I think it's more just a holdover from a more innocent age.

 

[The Nihilist]

The laws of God do not change, they have remained the same from the beginning.

Except for every time God felt like coming up with a new covenant

 

[Ondoher]

could you reference a modern philosopher of science that discusses this distinction between theory and law please?
i've taken a number of classes on the issue and i thought that the term is depreciated and a holdover from an earlier age (as was put so well above), however i'd be interested in reading what your source for this has to say on the issues.
tia.

Here is one source, I can probably dig deeper. http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

 

[Loudmouth]

As others have mentioned, "scientific law" is a vestige from the early days of the modern science movement. Laws describe consistent observations that are thought to be universal and are assumed to be true. The italicized portion actually makes laws into theories. For example, Newton's laws were thought to be universal but Einstein demonstrated that they were not as the laws did not work at all velocities and gravities. Up until that point, most physicists assumed the laws to be accurate.

And yes, laws can and have changed which is one reason that most scientists want to stop using the term altogether. What is important is that when scientists use the word "law" they understand what each other are talking about. No scientist expects that laws are somehow universal truths, but they proceed as if they were universally true until shown otherwise.

 

[Chalnoth]

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

I don't know if that definition for theory really works, either. For example, string theory has no evidence whatsoever in favor of it. The only thing that it has going for it is that it appears to be consistent with all observational evidence to date.

Thus a better definition of a theory is as follows:
A good theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence and provides clear, testable predictions for future experiments.

A bad theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence but doesn't provide clear, testable predictions (this would be string theory, by the way).

An invalidated theory is one that does not agree with all observational evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know if that definition for theory really works, either. For example, string theory has no evidence whatsoever in favor of it. The only thing that it has going for it is that it appears to be consistent with all observational evidence to date.

The problem is that there is currently no way of setting up an experiment to differentiate between the many theories explaining how matter and universes work.

Thus a better definition of a theory is as follows:
A good theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence and provides clear, testable predictions for future experiments.

I would add that a good theory also makes testable statements that no other theory makes. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted the CMB and redshift, something that the Steady State theory did not predict. You need a way of differentiating your theory from all of the others. This is often stated as "making risky predictions". If a theory predicts that light will act like a wave this is a very safe prediction because we already know that light acts like a wave.

A bad theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence but doesn't provide clear, testable predictions (this would be string theory, by the way).

To the general audience:

I need to read up on String Theory, and with that in mind, does String Theory make any predictions that differ from other models?

An invalidated theory is one that does not agree with all observational evidence.

I can agree with that.

 

[Ondoher]

I don't know if that definition for theory really works, either. For example, string theory has no evidence whatsoever in favor of it. The only thing that it has going for it is that it appears to be consistent with all observational evidence to date.

Thus a better definition of a theory is as follows:
A good theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence and provides clear, testable predictions for future experiments.

A bad theory is a statement about the nature of the operation of the universe that agrees with all observational evidence but doesn't provide clear, testable predictions (this would be string theory, by the way).

An invalidated theory is one that does not agree with all observational evidence.

Some have argued that string theory isn't really a theory. Some accuse it of being little more than a philosophy.

 

[Dragar]

I need to read up on String Theory, and with that in mind, does String Theory make any predictions that differ from other models?

Well, it predicts we won't find violations of CPT symmetry (at least, if memory serves). So we could falsify string theory in one fell swoop by finding such a violation.

Of course, most (but not all) other GUTs seem to make good use of CPT symmetry, so it's certainly not unique. But it is something that it differs from some other theories!

(I should add I'm way outside my area of understanding here. I just know bits and pieces about this topic.)

(Edit: CPT symmetry is the idea that if you reverse all the charges (C for charge) flip all the spatial axis (P for parity), and reverse time (you can guess now what T stands for), the 'laws of physics' will be entirely the same. )

 

[Pesto]

Some have argued that string theory isn't really a theory. Some accuse it of being little more than a philosophy.

Yes, theory is a problematic word. I think it could be classified as an unsupported theory, or a theroy that is not robust.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I need to read up on String Theory, and with that in mind, does String Theory make any predictions that differ from other models?

Probably the most well-known is 10/11 spatial dimensions.