Printable View
Yes, I do know there is a definite difference. I was just speaking of a general process - an idea, a theory, a law. Hmmm, it does now make me wonder, what is a law before it becomes a law? It's not a hypothesis, it's not a theory. I wonder if there is an absolute accepted answer. Thanks.
:bow
Please, let's not bicker, and lets keep this gentlemanly. All one needs to do is look up a term.
Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These are the definitions we will use in this thread, because they are the commonly accepted ones. There are clear differences between the laws and theories, and it is clearly stated that Scientific Theories do not become Scientific Laws. If you would choose not to use these definitions in this thread, I would kindly ask that you do not participate in this thread. My reason for that request is that this thread cannot progress if we do not use common language.
Chill out fro magnum!
Hey D, I don't think that we are bickering or being ungentlemanly (well ok, JCD is, go tell the moderator). I still am curious of what a law is before it's classified as a law.
:gwh:[JCD]:whipped:
:shrug:
:roflmao
Control, if you would like information, please read the article I just linked. It will provide a better explanation that I could.
Hey, it's all good playuh.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
Ya D, I did, but I didn't catch where it answered that question. Or it may have just been above my level of smarts.
Play on Playuh!
(if you read dis JCD, I'z saree fo' throwin' U under duh bus like that big dog, but U no how it iz gangstuh :cool: )
:cool:
Think of a scientific law as a rule by which theories have to play. Take, for example, newton's laws.
Now, laws do not apply to all cases and so they can be and are bound by the contexts by which they are applied.
For example, when speaking about physical bodies on an atomic-or-larger scale, newtons laws apply, however, subatomically that is not always the case.
That is why an as-yet unfalsified scientific theory is the apex of scientific method.
Sorry for the tangent but I thought an explanation in layman's terms might help. I'll weigh in with my thoughts on the OP when I'm in front of the computer and not pecking away on a phone.
Thanks O. My question was, what is a law called before it is called or classified as a law?
There is no "before." Laws are general statements which are true. Well, I suppose there could be a "before" period in which the experts of a field verify that laws hold, but as far as I know, there is no name for a law during this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ControlFreak1
Some may apply to specific circumstances, such as Newton's Laws of Motion (which do not account for high speeds or extremely small bodies), while others are true in every circumstance as far as we know, such as Maxwell's Laws (which can be beautifully used to show that electricity and magnetism are indeed two branches of the same force).
Well, there is a certain period before that, which I have read mentioned, but it didn't say what it was.
Thanks D.
Science: Comparing two or more similar things in an environment where the variables are known and posting an unbiased account of the results. For example, comparing the health effects of alcohol against drugs per 1000 users.
Pseudoscience: Comparing two or more similar things but engineering the comparison so you find what you want to find. Spinning the results with political ideology or plain making up the numbers. For example, comparing the health effects of alcohol against drugs across the population of the UK.
In the second example, the results will clearly be distorted because there are far more alcohol drinkers than drug addicts in the UK, so the number of people affected is much larger.
Science is watertight, clear, concise and backed up by empirical evidence that was generated using a fair and unbiased experiment.
Pseudoscience is fluff, smoke, mirrors, political spin or uses falsified evidence. I'm not saying its always wrong, but it is definately misleading and uses a bit of truth to cover a load of junk.
Some of the things mentioned above (psychology, astronomy) can still be called sciences as long as they are fairly based on the rules of that science as we understand them today. As long as you're not spinning the results or making them up, it has some sort of scientific process, which is I suppose the key to the whole thing for me.
Science has a scientific process that it follows, pseudoscience doesnt.