5 ms·

I am sorry but I don't quite agree with you. In science, there is clear delineation between things we know to be true (laws), things that appear to be true bas

by prerok 1y ago

I am sorry but I don't quite agree with you. In science, there is clear delineation between things we know to be true (laws), things that appear to be true based on our current knowledge (theories) and things that may or may not be true but seem to be true based on limited data/limited research (hypotheses). I don't think the three (I only see two, though, but don't want to nitpick) approaches are really comparable.

vcvitae 1y ago
Scientific laws are not solid. Newton's First Law (Law of Inertia) – assumes objects remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force; inaccurate in non-inertial (accelerating) frames without fictitious forces. Newton's Second Law – assumes constant mass and low velocities; inaccurate at relativistic speeds where mass increases with velocity. Newton's Third Law – inaccurate in electromagnetic, quantum, or relativistic contexts. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation – assumes instantaneous action at a distance and weak fields; replaced by General Relativity in strong fields or at high velocities. Boyle's Law – inaccurate at high pressures, low temperatures, or with real gases, which deviate from ideal behavior. Charles's Law – assumes ideal gas behavior; deviations occur at high pressures or low temperatures. Ohm's Law – assumes constant resistance; inaccurate for non-ohmic materials like diodes or at high voltages where resistance varies. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – inaccurate with fluctuations at microscopic scales, temporarily decreasing entropy. Kepler's Laws – inaccurate when considering relativistic effects. Laws of Motion of Fluids (e.g., Bernoulli's Law) – assumes incompressible, non-viscous flow; inaccurate for real fluids with viscosity or compressibility effects. Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures – assumes gases do not interact; inaccurate at high pressures or with strong intermolecular forces. Fick's Laws of Diffusion - inaccurate in complex systems with reactions or non-constant diffusion coefficients. Laws of Electromagnetic Induction (Faraday's Law) – assumes ideal conditions; real systems have hysteresis and other non-ideal effects. Laws of Radioactive Decay – exponential decay is inaccurate as does not fully regard environment or decay chain complexities.
- _dark 1y ago
  So that’s why there are no new laws these days?
  - triclops200 1y ago
    Principle seems to be the modern equivalent term to the concept that used to be represented by the word "law," in this context. I've also seen them used interchangeably on various things: "principle of least action" vs "law of least action" is a pretty common example.
- prerok 1y ago
  Fair enough. At which point do these non applicabilities make you think that the fact of putting your faith in science is bad? I mean, I tried to point out that science is a process, and yes, laws come with caveats. Some of them are known in advance, some not. The search for truth, if we are still arguing that, where is it? I don't understand how anybody can argue that the search is the same across theology and science. In a sense it is the search for the same thing, but in so many ways it is not. The commenter I was replying to is confounding the difference, and this comment, seems to ask me to point out what mistakes theology made, and I know of plenty.

by prerok 1y ago

vcvitae 1y ago

Scientific laws are not solid. Newton's First Law (Law of Inertia) – assumes objects remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force; inaccurate in non-inertial (accelerating) frames without fictitious forces. Newton's Second Law – assumes constant mass and low velocities; inaccurate at relativistic speeds where mass increases with velocity. Newton's Third Law – inaccurate in electromagnetic, quantum, or relativistic contexts. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation – assumes instantaneous action at a distance and weak fields; replaced by General Relativity in strong fields or at high velocities. Boyle's Law – inaccurate at high pressures, low temperatures, or with real gases, which deviate from ideal behavior. Charles's Law – assumes ideal gas behavior; deviations occur at high pressures or low temperatures. Ohm's Law – assumes constant resistance; inaccurate for non-ohmic materials like diodes or at high voltages where resistance varies. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – inaccurate with fluctuations at microscopic scales, temporarily decreasing entropy. Kepler's Laws – inaccurate when considering relativistic effects. Laws of Motion of Fluids (e.g., Bernoulli's Law) – assumes incompressible, non-viscous flow; inaccurate for real fluids with viscosity or compressibility effects. Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures – assumes gases do not interact; inaccurate at high pressures or with strong intermolecular forces. Fick's Laws of Diffusion - inaccurate in complex systems with reactions or non-constant diffusion coefficients. Laws of Electromagnetic Induction (Faraday's Law) – assumes ideal conditions; real systems have hysteresis and other non-ideal effects. Laws of Radioactive Decay – exponential decay is inaccurate as does not fully regard environment or decay chain complexities.

_dark 1y ago
So that’s why there are no new laws these days?
- triclops200 1y ago
  Principle seems to be the modern equivalent term to the concept that used to be represented by the word "law," in this context. I've also seen them used interchangeably on various things: "principle of least action" vs "law of least action" is a pretty common example.
prerok 1y ago
Fair enough. At which point do these non applicabilities make you think that the fact of putting your faith in science is bad? I mean, I tried to point out that science is a process, and yes, laws come with caveats. Some of them are known in advance, some not. The search for truth, if we are still arguing that, where is it? I don't understand how anybody can argue that the search is the same across theology and science. In a sense it is the search for the same thing, but in so many ways it is not. The commenter I was replying to is confounding the difference, and this comment, seems to ask me to point out what mistakes theology made, and I know of plenty.