|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Scientific Method For Beginners | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
NO. NO. NO.
Please read this. I have posted this before and the link. It explains it in simple laymen's terms. Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
quote: Please read very carefully the comparison and contrast between the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:But laws (e.g. Newton's and Kepler's laws) are not simply embodiments of observation. Their development required generalization beyond the actual observations; they required theory at some level, and are in some sense consequences of theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, it seems like a good explanation. I agree with it. But note that it also validates the way I have been using the terms:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
** duplicate post **
Edited by cavediver, : removing duplicate post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Their development required generalization beyond the actual observations Not usually - loosely, they are cases of building mathematical relationships to explain the observations. If there is generalisation that leads to predictions at the time unobserved, then you could argue that you are moving into the territory of a theory. But this is now outside the auspices of a law. But that doesn't stop a law forming the theory behind some previous law, e.g. you can view Newton LoG as forming the theory behind Kepler I, II, and III. Crudely, laws tell you how it is, and theories tell you why it is. And a law, by its nature, is always exceptionally tentat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again, I think I understand what you mean, but "fact of gravity" is non-standard language in physics Believe it or not 'fact of x' is not really standard language in any science. I'd be very surprised if it turned out that a poll of physicists who were asked 'is the existence of gravity a fact or is it a theory' would say 'it is a theory'.
I'm sure you can find some who use terms differently, but they are not the norm. Sounds like an empirical claim. Maybe in your personal experience - but in my personal experience practising scientists rarely discuss things like this, anyway. Given that we
agree on the main concepts. and that
The major disagreement is terminology. I'd be interested if you had any data to support what is and what is not the 'norm' here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As a further meeting of minds (I feel it deserves a post on its own so forgive the double post)
But note that it also validates the way I have been using the terms:
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally I think also might also agree here. I mentioned earlier that some facts can also be used to explain other facts, and this is one of the kinds of thing I was talking about. "The planets orbit the sun" is a fact, but it also explains our observations so it can also be seen as a theory. So, the law of gravity can be seen as explaining why celestial bodies do what they do (more or less) - but this is really the hair splitting I mentioned earlier. Still, the fact that there is such a thing as gravity still doesn't strike me as a theory since it doesn't explain anything - just gives a name to something we observe. I suppose saying that gravity is a universal, far-reaching force that acts upon bodies could be seen as a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:In normal scientific usage, there seems to be a broad range of things labeled "theory" and things labeled "law", with some overlap between them. A theory can be very narrow, such as the theory that a meteorite killed the dinosaurs. Or it can be very broad, such as electromagnetic theory. Likewise, a law can be narrow, such as Ohm's Law. Or it can be very broad, such as Maxwell's Equations , a set of laws which govern all of electromagnetism. Interestingly, we don't usually call the full set of Maxwell's Equations either a "theory" or a "law." Maxwell originally presented them as a part of his "theory" of electromagnetism, but the individual equations can be reduced to "laws" of electromagnetism such as Gauss' Law, Faraday's Law, and Ampere's Law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:In my experience, there is a fairly uniform, well-accepted understanding of distinctions between "fact" and "theory", and this sort of thing is frequently mentioned in casual conversation, colloquia, and popular-level writing by leading scientists. (E.g. see the article by Helen Quinn referenced earlier in this thread.) quote:I don't have any numeric data, such as polls or surveys. We could find examples of usage by leading scientists, many of whom have written books to explain science to the general public (e.g. Richard Feynmann, Victor Weisskopf, Freeman Dyson, and many, many others).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, and I think this far-reaching force is what people generally mean when they speak of the "theory of gravity." The "theory of gravity" does explain some things, such as celestial and orbital dynamics, Kepler's Laws, etc. True, it doesn't explain why gravity happens. But suppose we can find and measure the graviton--does this really explain gravity? It fills in our understanding, and gives us a more fundamental, unified understanding. But does it really explain why gravity happens? Is invoking an exchange of virtual gravitons really any better of a why than invoking a gravitational field described by an inverse square law? Perhaps gravity is a misleading example for us to use, since it is common in physics to speak of both the "theory" and "law" of gravity. Maybe an example like the Big Bang theory would be less confusing, since we don't speak of a big Bang "law".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Fact of gravity: Two masses have an attractive force between them (that isn't because of magnetics, electrostatics, or ?).
Law of gravity: A mathematical equation that quantifies the force between the masses. For non-relativistic conditions, it's (IIRC) directly proportional to the sum of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses. Theory of gravity: The hows and whys of the force. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Exactly
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Interestingly, we don't usually call the full set of Maxwell's Equations either a "theory" or a "law." Actually, we do. This is Maxwell's electromagnetism or the theory of electromagnetism. The laws explained by this theory are those you have mentioned, all empirically derived from observation. But Maxwell unified these laws into his theory, and went on to predict electromagnetic radiation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Now let us consider the position of a real person who actually exists, namely you. Would you really describe my belief that I have two legs as tentative? Not your belief that you have two legs. No. But in philosophy of science terms it is not proven, and never can be, that you actually have two legs. You could be an example of that philosophers favourite a "brain in a jar" with no legs at all. How relevant this particular philosophical consideration is to this topic is debatable. I would suggest it is a distration from the main aim of your topic. But if you refuse to even make a quick concilatory nod to such philosophical considerations then I feel that you are destined to spend most of the rest of this thread defending that position. Anyway I'll leave it at that. Feel free to ignore this particular distraction. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not your belief that you have two legs. No. Very well. If the proposition that I have two legs was carefully examined by anyone who could [a] examine me [b] count [c] define the word "leg", would their conclusion be "tentative"?
But in philosophy of science terms it is not proven, and never can be, that you actually have two legs. You could be an example of that philosophers favourite a "brain in a jar" with no legs at all. And I have said so.
But if you refuse to even make a quick concilatory nod to such philosophical considerations then I feel that you are destined to spend most of the rest of this thread defending that position. I have made more that a "quick conciliatory nod" to this particular philosophical consideration. I have treated it with the utmost cordiality, considering that it has never done anything for me. However, I would point out that if we are ever to get anything useful done at all, we have to stop wasting our time obsequiously bowing down to this tinpot idol and get on with stuff, such as investigating the Universe. The place that this particular consideration has in the philosophy of science is that it is obligate on every philosopher of science to explain why we should in practice ignore it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024