Posted by *z* on November 5, 2010, 6:41 am

*> On 11/5/2010 12:02 AM, z wrote:*

*>>*

*>>> On 11/4/2010 10:09 AM, dow wrote:*

*>>>>> On 11/2/2010 10:50 AM, andyv wrote:*

*>>>>> --*

*>>>>> Correct Scientific Terminology:*

*>>>>> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs*

*>>>>> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments*

*>>>>> to be generally assumed to be true.*

*>>>>> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments*

*>>>>> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a*

*>>>>> theory.*

*>>>>> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.*

*>>>>*

*>>>> As I've told you before, a scientific "Law" is NOT a very*

*>>>> thoroughly established theory. It IS a theory that is essentially a*

*>>>> mathematical statement, such as Newton's Law of Gravitation*

*>>>> (F=GMm/r^2), Snell's Law of Refraction (sin(i)/sin(r)=u1/u2), and*

*>>>> so on. *

*>>>>*

*>>>> dow*

*>>> Here we go again...<grin>*

*>>>*

*>>> Just because something can be proven mathematically*

*>>> Does not necessarily make it reality...*

*>>>*

*>>> The math is not needed...either for a theory...or a law...*

*>>> what is needed is experiments....or observations....observations are*

*>>> the result of natural experiments....usually the math comes after*

*>>> the experiments have shown a hypothesis is possibly "real"....some*

*>>> mathematics minded people do not accept this fact....they seem to*

*>>> feel math is as good as an experiment....math can point someone in a*

*>>> direction...but can not prove anything....just because you can show*

*>>> something mathematically does not make it a theory....or a law....*

*>>*

*>> Math is the current best method used to describe the relationship*

*>> between observations.*

*>>*

*> I agree with your statement....but the question was, is the simple *

*> definition of a law in science as below....or does it have to be*

*> proven by mathematics.....and proof by mathematics makes it a*

*> law....not experiments....*

It's been a while since I taught scientific method. It's funny we never

actually got to the 'law' stage as I recall. More about experimental

design and falsification of the null hypothesis etc.

I would say -- just off the top of my head -- a Law is a predictor of

relationships between observations that has been accurate and repeated

over time to the point where any significant observed deviation to said

Law would make a lot of scientists shit bricks and fundimentially change

our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.

Which does happen BTW :)

*> *

*> I realize that my definitions below are the simple form that were the *

*> original when the scientific method was first conceived....and since *

*> then they have been modified....and wiggle words included...<grin> *

*> however if you can get by the modifications the original exists...*

*> some people seem to think the original should be ignored...and more*

*> modifications made to the present definition...both of theory and*

*> law... *

I agree that Math is just the method for describing relationships .. not

required to prove anything (or as we say in statistics disprove all the

other alternatives such that the probability is very high that the

primary hypothesis is correct).

There are issues with saying 'proved' or 'truth' given that we are within

a mathematical framework. The math people will say 'proved' (i'd guess

-- maybe not) but what we say in statistical analsysis of real data are

that the probability of the alternate explanations of the results are so

small that we must accept 'primary hypothesis' to be right, but we still

must express that in a probability since there exists the possibility

that some alternate explation is valid.

A friend of the family had an alternate theory of gravity .. the

Fieldless Universal Circlon Theory (FUCT) which described the

relationship between objects pretty well .. it involved matter expansion

-- the earth doubling in size every 22 mins, so that when you 'dropped'

an object, rather than the object falling, the earth (constantly

expanding) grow up to strike it. His math was very good and clean and

his method would allow you to plot a course to the moon etc.. at least as

good as newton. It also predicted some new elements, new structure of

matter (the circlon) etc.. it was quite a bit of work. As far as the

Math was concerned it was 'true' .. But we're still calling it the FUCT

theory :)

anyway

cheers for the conversation

-z

*> *

*> thank you for your thoughts....have fun...sno*

*> *

Posted by *sno* on November 5, 2010, 7:06 am

On 11/5/2010 1:41 AM, z wrote:

*>> On 11/5/2010 12:02 AM, z wrote:*

*>>>*

*>>>> On 11/4/2010 10:09 AM, dow wrote:*

*>>>>>> On 11/2/2010 10:50 AM, andyv wrote:*

*>>>>>> --*

*>>>>>> Correct Scientific Terminology:*

*>>>>>> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs*

*>>>>>> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments*

*>>>>>> to be generally assumed to be true.*

*>>>>>> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments*

*>>>>>> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a*

*>>>>>> theory.*

*>>>>>> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.*

*>>>>>*

*>>>>> As I've told you before, a scientific "Law" is NOT a very*

*>>>>> thoroughly established theory. It IS a theory that is essentially a*

*>>>>> mathematical statement, such as Newton's Law of Gravitation*

*>>>>> (F=GMm/r^2), Snell's Law of Refraction (sin(i)/sin(r)=u1/u2), and*

*>>>>> so on.*

*>>>>>*

*>>>>> dow*

*>>>> Here we go again...<grin>*

*>>>>*

*>>>> Just because something can be proven mathematically*

*>>>> Does not necessarily make it reality...*

*>>>>*

*>>>> The math is not needed...either for a theory...or a law...*

*>>>> what is needed is experiments....or observations....observations are*

*>>>> the result of natural experiments....usually the math comes after*

*>>>> the experiments have shown a hypothesis is possibly "real"....some*

*>>>> mathematics minded people do not accept this fact....they seem to*

*>>>> feel math is as good as an experiment....math can point someone in a*

*>>>> direction...but can not prove anything....just because you can show*

*>>>> something mathematically does not make it a theory....or a law....*

*>>>*

*>>> Math is the current best method used to describe the relationship*

*>>> between observations.*

*>>>*

*>> I agree with your statement....but the question was, is the simple*

*>> definition of a law in science as below....or does it have to be*

*>> proven by mathematics.....and proof by mathematics makes it a*

*>> law....not experiments....*

*> It's been a while since I taught scientific method. It's funny we never*

*> actually got to the 'law' stage as I recall. More about experimental*

*> design and falsification of the null hypothesis etc.*

*> I would say -- just off the top of my head -- a Law is a predictor of*

*> relationships between observations that has been accurate and repeated*

*> over time to the point where any significant observed deviation to said*

*> Law would make a lot of scientists shit bricks and fundimentially change*

*> our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.*

*> Which does happen BTW :)*

LOL...I sure agree with you...many forget...or never learned...that in

science nothing is ever proven...just assumed to be true...

I have always had a problem with supposedly scientifically literate

people misusing the terms....especially confusing hypothesis with

theory....most people have a pretty good understanding of "law"...I

almost went ballistic the first time I heard string hypothesis being

referred to as string theory...<grin>....

*>>*

*>> I realize that my definitions below are the simple form that were the*

*>> original when the scientific method was first conceived....and since*

*>> then they have been modified....and wiggle words included...<grin>*

*>> however if you can get by the modifications the original exists...*

*>> some people seem to think the original should be ignored...and more*

*>> modifications made to the present definition...both of theory and*

*>> law...*

*> I agree that Math is just the method for describing relationships .. not*

*> required to prove anything (or as we say in statistics disprove all the*

*> other alternatives such that the probability is very high that the*

*> primary hypothesis is correct).*

*> There are issues with saying 'proved' or 'truth' given that we are within*

*> a mathematical framework. The math people will say 'proved' (i'd guess*

*> -- maybe not) but what we say in statistical analsysis of real data are*

*> that the probability of the alternate explanations of the results are so*

*> small that we must accept 'primary hypothesis' to be right, but we still*

*> must express that in a probability since there exists the possibility*

*> that some alternate explation is valid.*

*> A friend of the family had an alternate theory of gravity .. the*

*> Fieldless Universal Circlon Theory (FUCT) which described the*

*> relationship between objects pretty well .. it involved matter expansion*

*> -- the earth doubling in size every 22 mins, so that when you 'dropped'*

*> an object, rather than the object falling, the earth (constantly*

*> expanding) grow up to strike it. His math was very good and clean and*

*> his method would allow you to plot a course to the moon etc.. at least as*

*> good as newton. It also predicted some new elements, new structure of*

*> matter (the circlon) etc.. it was quite a bit of work. As far as the*

*> Math was concerned it was 'true' .. But we're still calling it the FUCT*

*> theory :)*

I like to point out newtons law of gravity which for over two hundred

years was a law.....until it was discovered that it did not apply to the

extremely small or extremely large...and is now still retained as a

theory because of its convenience.....

*> anyway*

*> cheers for the conversation*

also.....have fun....sno

--

Correct Scientific Terminology:

Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs

Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments

to be generally assumed to be true.

Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments

in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.

Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

Posted by *z* on November 5, 2010, 7:30 am

*> I like to point out newtons law of gravity which for over two hundred *

*> years was a law.....until it was discovered that it did not apply to*

*> the extremely small or extremely large...and is now still retained as*

*> a theory because of its convenience.....*

Exactly. It is still a 'law' in that you can use it to get to the moon or

predict a heck of a lot of stuff (they still call them Newtons laws of

motion right?). Even though it may not be 'true' the math describing the

relationships within known broundries work very well.

Does it matter if a 'law' is true or not if, in most practial

circumstances, it works to solve a problem?

damn it now we're into philosphy

take care sno

Posted by *sno* on November 5, 2010, 8:09 am

On 11/5/2010 2:30 AM, z wrote:

*>> I like to point out newtons law of gravity which for over two hundred*

*>> years was a law.....until it was discovered that it did not apply to*

*>> the extremely small or extremely large...and is now still retained as*

*>> a theory because of its convenience.....*

*> Exactly. It is still a 'law' in that you can use it to get to the moon or*

*> predict a heck of a lot of stuff (they still call them Newtons laws of*

*> motion right?). Even though it may not be 'true' the math describing the*

*> relationships within known broundries work very well.*

*> Does it matter if a 'law' is true or not if, in most practial*

*> circumstances, it works to solve a problem?*

*> damn it now we're into philosphy*

*> take care sno*

It is usually called a theory now...except for those who remember it as

a law...<grin>....Einstein blew it away...from what I

understand....einsteins hypothesis explained everything newtons did plus

the extremely large and small....but he had to do it with two

hypothesis...einstein and people since have been trying to tie the two

together into one hypothesis....so far no luck...if everything I knew

about einsteins theories was weighed it would weigh less than a

scruple..<grin>

This thing started with crawl space energy storage...so am not to

surprised it drifted into philosophy...after all think how close

together they are....LOL

have fun....sno

--

Correct Scientific Terminology:

Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs

Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments

to be generally assumed to be true.

Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments

in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.

Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

Posted by *z* on December 3, 2010, 3:57 am

*> On 11/5/2010 1:41 AM, z wrote:*

*>>*

*>>> On 11/5/2010 12:02 AM, z wrote:*

*>>>>*

*>>>>> On 11/4/2010 10:09 AM, dow wrote:*

*>>>>>>> On 11/2/2010 10:50 AM, andyv wrote:*

*>>>>>>> --*

*>>>>>>> Correct Scientific Terminology:*

*>>>>>>> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs*

*>>>>>>> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough*

*>>>>>>> experiments *

*>>>>>>> to be generally assumed to be true.*

*>>>>>>> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments*

*>>>>>>> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer*

*>>>>>>> then a theory.*

*>>>>>>> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be*

*>>>>>>> true. *

*>>>>>>*

*>>>>>> As I've told you before, a scientific "Law" is NOT a very*

*>>>>>> thoroughly established theory. It IS a theory that is essentially*

*>>>>>> a mathematical statement, such as Newton's Law of Gravitation*

*>>>>>> (F=GMm/r^2), Snell's Law of Refraction (sin(i)/sin(r)=u1/u2), and*

*>>>>>> so on.*

*>>>>>>*

*>>>>>> dow*

*>>>>> Here we go again...<grin>*

*>>>>>*

*>>>>> Just because something can be proven mathematically*

*>>>>> Does not necessarily make it reality...*

*>>>>>*

*>>>>> The math is not needed...either for a theory...or a law...*

*>>>>> what is needed is experiments....or observations....observations*

*>>>>> are the result of natural experiments....usually the math comes*

*>>>>> after the experiments have shown a hypothesis is possibly*

*>>>>> "real"....some mathematics minded people do not accept this*

*>>>>> fact....they seem to feel math is as good as an experiment....math*

*>>>>> can point someone in a direction...but can not prove*

*>>>>> anything....just because you can show something mathematically*

*>>>>> does not make it a theory....or a law.... *

*>>>>*

*>>>> Math is the current best method used to describe the relationship*

*>>>> between observations.*

*>>>>*

*>>> I agree with your statement....but the question was, is the simple*

*>>> definition of a law in science as below....or does it have to be*

*>>> proven by mathematics.....and proof by mathematics makes it a*

*>>> law....not experiments....*

*>>*

*>> It's been a while since I taught scientific method. It's funny we*

*>> never actually got to the 'law' stage as I recall. More about*

*>> experimental design and falsification of the null hypothesis etc.*

*>>*

*>> I would say -- just off the top of my head -- a Law is a predictor of*

*>> relationships between observations that has been accurate and*

*>> repeated over time to the point where any significant observed*

*>> deviation to said Law would make a lot of scientists shit bricks and*

*>> fundimentially change our understanding of whatever it is we're*

*>> talking about. *

*>>*

*>> Which does happen BTW :)*

*> *

*> LOL...I sure agree with you...many forget...or never learned...that in*

*> science nothing is ever proven...just assumed to be true...*

*> *

*> I have always had a problem with supposedly scientifically literate *

*> people misusing the terms....especially confusing hypothesis with *

*> theory....most people have a pretty good understanding of "law"...I *

*> almost went ballistic the first time I heard string hypothesis being *

*> referred to as string theory...<grin>....*

I think we just had one of those 'law breakers' today -- DNA found in

bacteria with arsenic in place of potassium.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/NASA-DNA-Arsenic-Life-form-Mono-Lake,news-

9190.html

So much for that !

:)

-z

> On 11/5/2010 12:02 AM, z wrote:>>>>> On 11/4/2010 10:09 AM, dow wrote:>>>>> On 11/2/2010 10:50 AM, andyv wrote:>>>>> -->>>>> Correct Scientific Terminology:>>>>> Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs>>>>> Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments>>>>> to be generally assumed to be true.>>>>> Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments>>>>> in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a>>>>> theory.>>>>> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.>>>>>>>> As I've told you before, a scientific "Law" is NOT a very>>>> thoroughly established theory. It IS a theory that is essentially a>>>> mathematical statement, such as Newton's Law of Gravitation>>>> (F=GMm/r^2), Snell's Law of Refraction (sin(i)/sin(r)=u1/u2), and>>>> so on.>>>>>>>> dow>>> Here we go again...<grin>>>>>>> Just because something can be proven mathematically>>> Does not necessarily make it reality...>>>>>> The math is not needed...either for a theory...or a law...>>> what is needed is experiments....or observations....observations are>>> the result of natural experiments....usually the math comes after>>> the experiments have shown a hypothesis is possibly "real"....some>>> mathematics minded people do not accept this fact....they seem to>>> feel math is as good as an experiment....math can point someone in a>>> direction...but can not prove anything....just because you can show>>> something mathematically does not make it a theory....or a law....>>>> Math is the current best method used to describe the relationship>> between observations.>>> I agree with your statement....but the question was, is the simple> definition of a law in science as below....or does it have to be> proven by mathematics.....and proof by mathematics makes it a> law....not experiments....