Posted by z on December 3, 2010, 4:02 am
216.196.97.131:
>
>> 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.
=~s/potassium/phosphorus/g
phosphorus!
I'm an idiot
-z
Posted by you on December 3, 2010, 8:02 pm
> 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 !
>
> :)
It was Phosphorus not potassium.... FYI
Posted by z on December 3, 2010, 9:04 pm
@news.starband.net:
>
>> 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 !
>>
>> :)
>
> It was Phosphorus not potassium.... FYI
>
I know i'm an idiot. Sorry
Posted by Ahem A Rivet's Shot on November 5, 2010, 9:37 am
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:25:06 -0500
> 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....
Newton's laws of motion:
Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving
uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its
state by force impressed.
Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force
impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that
force is impress'd.
Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or
the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in
opposite directions.
I see no mathematics (although the second law could be considered a
description in words of a mathematical relationship).
In the original latin they were Lex I, II and III. This may well be
the origin of the use of the word "law" for a scientific statement. It is
perhaps worth noting that these statements were called laws in their
original publication. So neither mathematics nor long term, widespread
acceptance was involved in calling them laws.
However if you wish to discuss the meanings and uses of words in
particular contexts then perhaps alt.usage.english would be a good place to
do it.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Posted by dow on November 5, 2010, 2:35 pm
The theories that ordinary matter consists of atoms, that biological
species evolve, that light consists of waves, etc., etc., have been
verified beyond any rational doubt, yet they are still and will always
be theories, not laws. Laws are essentially quantitative, capable of
being stated in mathematical terms. Non-quantitative theories cannot
be laws, no matter how well they are verified by observation.
However, it is true that these distinctions are sometimes ignored in
practice. "Avogadro's Hypothesis", for example, which states that at
equal temperatures and pressures, equal volumes of all gases contain
equal numbers of molecules, is an extremely well established (though
slightly approximate) statement, worthy of being called a law. But
most scientists continue to call it a hypothesis, just out of habit.
There are cases of laws being called theories, and theories being
called laws.
But no scientist ever starts calling a theory a law just because it
has been very well verified.
dow
>> 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.