happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: 08-21-2004
|
|
Message 6 of 9 (164353)
12-01-2004 12:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
12-01-2004 6:15 AM
|
|
I always considered laws to simply be relationships or observations. For example newtons laws of motion are all observations about massive bodies. He observed that bodies in motion remained in motion unless a force acted upon them for example. Even the quantative law of F=ma is simply an observation that acceleration and force are proportional. Theories on the other hand are models constructed around the observable facts. That would make "laws" a special term for observable facts and relationships, and as Mr Jack said a term thats a relic of past times.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by CK, posted 12-01-2004 6:15 AM | | CK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by Dr Cresswell, posted 12-01-2004 12:50 PM | | happy_atheist has not replied |
|
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: 08-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 9 of 9 (164445)
12-01-2004 5:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
12-01-2004 1:42 PM
|
|
Well I certainly understand how someone who is new to science could be confused by terms such as fact, law and theory. If layman definitions are used it would be easy to think that there were things that are definately true (facts and laws), and things we guess might be true (theory). "Law" does sound much better than "observation" does though.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by CK, posted 12-01-2004 1:42 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2