This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Scientific law:
|
This article was nominated for merging with Laws of science on 7 May 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for merging with Laws of science on 11 May 2018. The result of the discussion was merged. |
What other nonphysical scientific laws are there? here are some sites to look at:
Some sort of universal mortality law. Not clear from abstract
The second paragraph seems to be thoroughly confused about what the relationship between a law and a theory is. Laws are empirical facts (observations) and are always true to the error of measurement. Theories are models that try to explain these observations. So theories never become laws becouse they are more general (and not becouse they cannot be proven, which is true but not very relevant here).
Incidently the term law is usually applied when there someone finds a relationship which is yet unexplained by any theory or model. They are (at the time of their naming) sets of puzzles remaining to be solved.
86.101.162.160 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally, scientific laws are taken to be proven to a degree somewhat beyond a scientific theory that is still under investigation.
I would agree with this. Does it need a source?-- Filll 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory". I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: [1] - Alex.rosenheim 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientific Law is a statment about how thigs work in nature that seem to be of the I.E. law gravity
I think this should be merged or redirected because it isn't really any different information - Tsinoyman ( talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
the scientific law —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.170.64.252 (
talk)
18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, both articles are kinda messes but this one probably has the best title while LoS has better content. -- 208.38.59.163 ( talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this article be merged with Physical law (see Talk:Physical_law#Merge_from_Scientific_law). Some objected arguing this article may be about laws of sciences in general (including social sciences). It is not clear whether this article's precise topic is laws of natural sciences or of sciences in general. See Talk:Physical_law#Terminological_mess_.28physical.2Fscientific_laws.29. -- Chealer ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Why would scientific principle redirect here? Most evolutionary biologists, for example, refer to Darwin's three part syllogism of natural selection (heritability, variation, differential fitness) as general principles, but would not make the claim that it is a scientific law. Principle and law are not the same, but I realize this is opening up a philosophical kettle of worms. Thompsma ( talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I've been told, and if the answer is yes, I would like it to be in this article. Thanks.
I will show how the answer cannot be Yes. For example, there are a group of rules that define what statement about the world is Science, or (not) ”Faith.”
One rule from this group is that a scientific claim must be replicable by other scientists. Say you measure the rate that a 10 pound weight falls from a 1000 foot tower. In your write-up of the experiment and its results, you specify that the falling weight’s rate of falling is measured every 10 feet. You find that the weight’s rate of fall accelerates (you did not expect this) as it falls; it quickly reaches the rate of 32 feet/second, but the rate (distance/time) doubles in the next second!—-your results are, then, that objects, in time increments of one second, fall at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. Under the (initial) conditions you carefully described. That is Ll you can say for now. The results include some math but maybe something about how you got your results is unique to your experimental setup (10 pound weight; 1000 foot high tower). You cannot yet be certain of the result (32’/sec/sec). So other scientists, from other (anywhere) places on earth must replicate your experiment using your method; and eventually other conditions. Say they doz, and get the same results after hundreds of separate trials. Only after this replication can you call your results a scientific law.
This scientific experiment was carefully explained precisely so other scientists could test it out. That is not math. Even with math in the experiment, it still uses careful language so others can easily replicate it and if ”true” enter your result into the Scientific Canon, and you can get your Nobel prize for discovering the rate and acceleration of the rate of a falling object on earth under the influence of gravity (others and/or you must try many other weights and distances of falling until your result is a “universal constant”). Another indicator of true science is also operating here: that others get the same result under replication means the results are ”real”.
Imagine you see blue rabbits before it rains, every time. No one else except your suggestive, not too bright friend, sees these rabbits. Thousands look but no one else sees these blue rabbits before rain.
Then you say only ”true believers” can see the rabbits. And you instantly insure the blue rabbit observation is not going to be part if the canon like your other experimental results.
Bingo! Your finding here is considered to be based on faith, not science. It is not replicable, or even ”disprovable” by others (this part us tricky) because maybe you really do see blue rabbits—we cannot read your mind. Therein lies another rule indicating a scientific finding, or not--it must be falsifiable or disprovable.
You found, then, that scientific statements must be replicable and capable oF being falsified. Not bad and not mathematics either. You’re conclusions were first discovered by a philosopher of science in the mid 20th century. You’re a true Renaissance man! Q.E.D.
findings.Y BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Merge with physical law? Tttrung ( talk) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Editor "Sunrise" has now done us a a great service by doing the merge with "Physical Law" that was the strong majority opinion about what should be done. Nonetheless, the resulting edited and merged article is still rough in several places, often a little unclear, and occasionally repetitive. In the near future I propose to offer a few new edits to the newly merged article. I will do this in pieces, so that those who may disagree with one or more of my suggestions may comment on them individually, or even revert if they consider it necessary, rather than reviewing collectively all edits at once. Ajrocke ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the "Laws of biology" is a single sentence. The "Laws of physics" unfairly dominates the article. Y'all know that there is more to science, than just physics, right? Not to bring up #metoo but seriously: in physics, 49 out of 50 graduate students are male. In biology, 35 out of 50 are female. Not to bring up #blm, but pretty much exactly zero physics students and professors are American blacks (save one, Jim Gates. One. Exactly one.). I think the others hang out in social science and anthropology departments. Not to bring up #capitalism, but physics is the prototypical "hard science" and economics has a severe chip on its shoulder, it has physics-envy to the extent that it has corrupted economics to it's very deepest core, resulting in global capitalistic chaos and populist politicians of the very worst sort. But here we are in Wikipedia, reinforcing the ugliest, nastiest and worst possible stereotypes of science that we can possibly find. Surely we can do better! 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening sentence by adding 'mathematically' at its end... Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena that can be expressed mathematically. 2601:589:4800:9090:F5DA:4CF1:57ED:4CF5 ( talk) 14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts. [4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous, an overstatement, or an equivocation.[5] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy, but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes."
These sentences annihilate the layman's concept of a scientific law. If laws aren't factual, then what are they, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.164.162 ( talk) 21:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Scientific law:
|
This article was nominated for merging with Laws of science on 7 May 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for merging with Laws of science on 11 May 2018. The result of the discussion was merged. |
What other nonphysical scientific laws are there? here are some sites to look at:
Some sort of universal mortality law. Not clear from abstract
The second paragraph seems to be thoroughly confused about what the relationship between a law and a theory is. Laws are empirical facts (observations) and are always true to the error of measurement. Theories are models that try to explain these observations. So theories never become laws becouse they are more general (and not becouse they cannot be proven, which is true but not very relevant here).
Incidently the term law is usually applied when there someone finds a relationship which is yet unexplained by any theory or model. They are (at the time of their naming) sets of puzzles remaining to be solved.
86.101.162.160 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally, scientific laws are taken to be proven to a degree somewhat beyond a scientific theory that is still under investigation.
I would agree with this. Does it need a source?-- Filll 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory". I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: [1] - Alex.rosenheim 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientific Law is a statment about how thigs work in nature that seem to be of the I.E. law gravity
I think this should be merged or redirected because it isn't really any different information - Tsinoyman ( talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
the scientific law —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.170.64.252 (
talk)
18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, both articles are kinda messes but this one probably has the best title while LoS has better content. -- 208.38.59.163 ( talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this article be merged with Physical law (see Talk:Physical_law#Merge_from_Scientific_law). Some objected arguing this article may be about laws of sciences in general (including social sciences). It is not clear whether this article's precise topic is laws of natural sciences or of sciences in general. See Talk:Physical_law#Terminological_mess_.28physical.2Fscientific_laws.29. -- Chealer ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Why would scientific principle redirect here? Most evolutionary biologists, for example, refer to Darwin's three part syllogism of natural selection (heritability, variation, differential fitness) as general principles, but would not make the claim that it is a scientific law. Principle and law are not the same, but I realize this is opening up a philosophical kettle of worms. Thompsma ( talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I've been told, and if the answer is yes, I would like it to be in this article. Thanks.
I will show how the answer cannot be Yes. For example, there are a group of rules that define what statement about the world is Science, or (not) ”Faith.”
One rule from this group is that a scientific claim must be replicable by other scientists. Say you measure the rate that a 10 pound weight falls from a 1000 foot tower. In your write-up of the experiment and its results, you specify that the falling weight’s rate of falling is measured every 10 feet. You find that the weight’s rate of fall accelerates (you did not expect this) as it falls; it quickly reaches the rate of 32 feet/second, but the rate (distance/time) doubles in the next second!—-your results are, then, that objects, in time increments of one second, fall at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. Under the (initial) conditions you carefully described. That is Ll you can say for now. The results include some math but maybe something about how you got your results is unique to your experimental setup (10 pound weight; 1000 foot high tower). You cannot yet be certain of the result (32’/sec/sec). So other scientists, from other (anywhere) places on earth must replicate your experiment using your method; and eventually other conditions. Say they doz, and get the same results after hundreds of separate trials. Only after this replication can you call your results a scientific law.
This scientific experiment was carefully explained precisely so other scientists could test it out. That is not math. Even with math in the experiment, it still uses careful language so others can easily replicate it and if ”true” enter your result into the Scientific Canon, and you can get your Nobel prize for discovering the rate and acceleration of the rate of a falling object on earth under the influence of gravity (others and/or you must try many other weights and distances of falling until your result is a “universal constant”). Another indicator of true science is also operating here: that others get the same result under replication means the results are ”real”.
Imagine you see blue rabbits before it rains, every time. No one else except your suggestive, not too bright friend, sees these rabbits. Thousands look but no one else sees these blue rabbits before rain.
Then you say only ”true believers” can see the rabbits. And you instantly insure the blue rabbit observation is not going to be part if the canon like your other experimental results.
Bingo! Your finding here is considered to be based on faith, not science. It is not replicable, or even ”disprovable” by others (this part us tricky) because maybe you really do see blue rabbits—we cannot read your mind. Therein lies another rule indicating a scientific finding, or not--it must be falsifiable or disprovable.
You found, then, that scientific statements must be replicable and capable oF being falsified. Not bad and not mathematics either. You’re conclusions were first discovered by a philosopher of science in the mid 20th century. You’re a true Renaissance man! Q.E.D.
findings.Y BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Merge with physical law? Tttrung ( talk) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Editor "Sunrise" has now done us a a great service by doing the merge with "Physical Law" that was the strong majority opinion about what should be done. Nonetheless, the resulting edited and merged article is still rough in several places, often a little unclear, and occasionally repetitive. In the near future I propose to offer a few new edits to the newly merged article. I will do this in pieces, so that those who may disagree with one or more of my suggestions may comment on them individually, or even revert if they consider it necessary, rather than reviewing collectively all edits at once. Ajrocke ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the "Laws of biology" is a single sentence. The "Laws of physics" unfairly dominates the article. Y'all know that there is more to science, than just physics, right? Not to bring up #metoo but seriously: in physics, 49 out of 50 graduate students are male. In biology, 35 out of 50 are female. Not to bring up #blm, but pretty much exactly zero physics students and professors are American blacks (save one, Jim Gates. One. Exactly one.). I think the others hang out in social science and anthropology departments. Not to bring up #capitalism, but physics is the prototypical "hard science" and economics has a severe chip on its shoulder, it has physics-envy to the extent that it has corrupted economics to it's very deepest core, resulting in global capitalistic chaos and populist politicians of the very worst sort. But here we are in Wikipedia, reinforcing the ugliest, nastiest and worst possible stereotypes of science that we can possibly find. Surely we can do better! 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening sentence by adding 'mathematically' at its end... Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena that can be expressed mathematically. 2601:589:4800:9090:F5DA:4CF1:57ED:4CF5 ( talk) 14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts. [4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous, an overstatement, or an equivocation.[5] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy, but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes."
These sentences annihilate the layman's concept of a scientific law. If laws aren't factual, then what are they, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.164.162 ( talk) 21:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)