What is science?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 21:01
VIEWED: 22722
PAGE 9 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Meh, at one time it was scientific law, unassailable "fact" that the earth was flat.
There was never a scientific law that said the Earth was flat. Even if there had been consensus within "science" that the Earth was flat, that would have been a THEORY and not a LAW.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
At one time, it was scientific law, unassailable "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth.
There was never a scientific law that the sun orbited the Earth. It's true that Geocentricism was (sort of) a scientific theory at one time, but it was a THEORY and not a LAW.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Hell, take the "law" of gravity, it's a working theory that isn't even *complete* till you add ON THIS PLANET, and under certain circumstances, like the work of Townsend Brown, and certain spatial phenomenae, so far as my understanding of it, might not even apply universally even so.
Hmm. This is, confused. Point one, very basic mistake you're obviously making: I don't know why but for some reason many people seem to think that a theory will, at some point, graduate to being a law. This isn't so, Laws and theories are two entirely different things. There is a law of Gravity, which works very well, even including THIS PLANET; there's also half a dozen theories of Gravity, but none of them are quite right. Law != Theory, theories and laws aren't the same thing.
A law describes an observed effect. Saying "the sun rises in the morning and sets on the other side of the sky in the evening" would be a scientific law. Describing why that event occurs would be a theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They never used that nomenclature of "scientific law," but the certainty of a scientific law was there. "Earth is flat" was based on universal, empirical observations across the entire planet over millenia. Its predictive value of well, finding flat Earth no matter where you go, was extremely reliable. There was no doubt a consensus amongst scholars of the time.
Originally posted by CITIZEN:
There was never a scientific law that said the Earth was flat. Even if there had been consensus within "science" that the Earth was flat, that would have been a THEORY and not a LAW....
A law describes an observed effect. Saying "the sun rises in the morning and sets on the other side of the sky in the evening" would be a scientific law. Describing why that event occurs would be a theory.
As you say, describing the Earth as flat would be the equivalent of a scientific law. Describing WHY the Earth was flat would be a theory.
Quote:Well, in your own words, describing the observation that the sun orbits the Earth would be a law. Describing WHY the sun orbited the Earth would be a theory.
There was never a scientific law that the sun orbited the Earth. It's true that Geocentricism was (sort of) a scientific theory at one time, but it was a THEORY and not a LAW.
Here is a good article on laws vs. theories that reflects my thoughts on the topic very well. I can't say it better than this guy and highly recommend reading the entire article. I've taken the liberty of underscoring certain passages.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Quote:
As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.
Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
They never used that nomenclature of "scientific law," but the certainty of a scientific law was there.
No, not that that is a particularly relevant objection. Further the "certainty" isn't what makes it a scientific law, what makes it a scientific law is whether or not it's a description of an observed effect.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
"Earth is flat" was based on universal, empirical observations across the entire planet over millenia.
Scientific theories are based on empirical observation. Laws are descriptions of empirical observation. That's the difference.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Its predictive value of well, finding flat Earth no matter where you go, was extremely reliable. There was no doubt a consensus amongst scholars of the time.
There might well have been, but it was never really a scientific theory, and it sure as hell was never ever a scientific law.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As you say, describing the Earth as flat would be the equivalent of a scientific law.
Well, it didn't take long for "me" to start putting words in "your" mouth again did it? Where, pray tell, did I say any such thing? If there had been any "Law" it would be "we can't see any curvature here", not "the Earth is flat". Your whole supposition is nothing more than sophistry, equivocation at best.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Describing WHY the Earth was flat would be a theory.
No, describing why the Earth APPEARS flat to their observations would be the theory. The law, at best would be "the Earth looks flat". The Theory would be "it looks flat because it is flat". You could also say "it appears flat because it's a very big sphere". See how two explanations can be used without changing the underlying observation at all?
Subtle difference perhaps, but still one that produces a vastly different meaning.
Quote:
Well, in your own words, describing the observation that the sun orbits the Earth would be a law. Describing WHY the sun orbited the Earth would be a theory.
And again "I" put words in "your" mouth, huh. No my own words, said "the sun appears to move across the sky". Saying it appears so because the Sun circles the Earth is STILL a theory.
Don't believe me that geocentricism was a theory?
Quote:
The geocentric theory is the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all other objects orbit around it. This outdated and disproved theory is often attributed to Ptolemy.
http://www.universetoday.com/71978/geocentric-theory/
Quote:
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as "geocentrism", or the Ptolemaic view of the whole universe), is the superseded theory, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is a good article on laws vs. theories that reflects my thoughts on the topic very well. I can't say it better than this guy and highly recommend reading the entire article. I've taken the liberty of underscoring certain passages.
And I'll take your underscoring, and quote myself, to take the wind out of any possible "misunderstanding" you may have about my position:
Quote:
Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.
Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
The only way to overturn a scientific law is to prove that the experimental evidence is wrong, that the observed effect didn't, in fact happen.
Clearly noting that it's possible to overturn a Law, just that it's very hard. I also
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As you say, describing the Earth as flat would be the equivalent of a scientific law.
Well, it didn't take long for "me" to start putting words in "your" mouth again did it? Where, pray tell, did I say any such thing?
"A law describes an observed effect. Saying 'the sun rises in the morning and sets on the other side of the sky in the evening' would be a scientific law. Describing why that event occurs would be a theory."
Quote:I thought you didn't like to argue semantics.
The law, at best would be "the Earth looks flat".
The Earth "looks" flat. "Describing the Earth as flat." Whatever. The concept of a flattish, flat-looking Earth is a description of an observed effect (in your own words), and therefore should qualify by your definition, as a law and not a theory. An explanation of WHY the Earth appears flat (such as it was a platter lying on the back of a chain of turtles), that would be a theory, in your own words.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As you say, describing the Earth as flat would be the equivalent of a scientific law.
Well, it didn't take long for "me" to start putting words in "your" mouth again did it? Where, pray tell, did I say any such thing?
"A law describes an observed effect. Saying 'the sun rises in the morning and sets on the other side of the sky in the evening' would be a scientific law. Describing why that event occurs would be a theory."
Read the quote again. I asked where I said that the "Earth is flat is a scientific law", and you quote me saying "the sun rises in the morning". Your quote doesn't support your claim, I'd say try again, but I'm done playing shadow for your strawman.
Quote:
I thought you didn't like to argue semantics.
I thought you didn't lie about what people say. But here you are, claiming I said things I didn't say.
Quote:
The Earth "looks" flat. "Describing the Earth as flat." Whatever. The concept of a flattish, flat-looking Earth is a description of an observed effect (in your own words), and therefore should qualify by your definition, as a law and not a theory. An explanation of WHY the Earth appears flat (such as it was a platter lying on the back of a chain of turtles), that would be a theory, in your own words.
It's not semantics to say two sentences that say two entirely different things are different sentences. It is dishonest to claim I'm saying things I haven't said, and have actually flatly told you I wasn't saying, though.
No, not in my words. Very much not in MY own words. THEY are YOUR words, that you're attempting to attribute to me. Well, I tried to set you straight about what I was saying, but you've ignored me. I'm playing Ferdinand in a production of the Tempest, so I'm going to learn my lines, because I'm clearly just wasting my time here.
Outside of this I actually quite like you, so I'll catch you later, have a nice Saturday, peace.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you serious?
Originally posted by citizen:
Read the quote again. I asked where I said that the "Earth is flat is a scientific law", and you quote me saying "the sun rises in the morning".
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LHCb looks forward to the 2030s
https://cerncourier.com/a/lhcb-looks-forward-to-the-2030s/
No, the James Webb Space Telescope Hasn’t Broken Cosmology
https://www.wired.com/story/no-the-james-webb-space-telescope-hasnt-br
oken-cosmology/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quantum Physics and Cosmology and Nano tech and Artificial Intelligence and Psychology go into the realm of fringe
for some they are the more interesting subject because of the fringe nature
Who are the best Science nations doing discovers, writing papers, winning pirizes, per head of population it is now Switzerland, Monaco, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Falkland Islands, Singapore, Iceland, Macau, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Estonia, Portugal, Australia...and even the Vatican City
a population of French speakers at the French Southern and Antarctic Lands rank very high on science but now doubt supported by the French government
The USA has many discovers and so did Russia during the USSR and Soviet era but per head of population they now rank lower on the sciences.
Science is an evolution of the rational process, a modern systematized and organized knowledge about the various natural phenomena this can be obtained by careful mathematical experimentation, machines built to test theory, models created and keen observation.
The linguistics of the English term the word "science" came from the Latin word for knowledge scientia. An old language of Rome, the Latin term from a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages that word 'science' comes from a Latin word 'scientia' and originally meant 'knowledge' but used used more particularly to stand for 'systematic knowledge' In Asia they considered themselves the center in 'China' they had a term for Science which they still use 'Section' 'Learn or the Arts Studying' they don't really have an alphabet as we do in the West, in China and Japan instead a traditional picto Logogram indicative Pictograph morphemes symbol ideogram 'letters' with thousands upon thousands of characters ...this philosophy of 'Section' 'Learn or Study' two characters combined into an idea has philosophically spread from China through Asia, Japan, the Koreas, Vietnam a very similar but maybe somewhat different view on science. Biology becomes Live or 'Life' combined with Thing or Things and Learning Study, Chemistry becomes Chemical or Transformation and combined with a symbol for Science studies, and in Asia using Hazi or Kanji the term for Physics becomes a combination of Things / Item and Reasoning and combined with Science Study...because of how linguistics works some one of another culture might have a different view on the definition of 'science' with 'Words' across Asia there might be slight differences on meaning, a character from Japan which looks the same as a Chinese character may have a somewhat different linguistic meaning than its original character from China, the same for Cantonese or Vietnamese or Korean which use ChuHan or Han-ja, just as Spanish or English or French or German or Spanish have many words with a Latin or Greek root but with a slightly different linguistic meaning, languages and cultures might have a slightly different definition of sciences.
The process of science a very mathematical, the methodological naturalism aimed at new findings, accuracy obtained in the exact measurement of physical quantities and systematic way of building up knowledge, consists of observing the world by watching, listening, observing, and recording while applying reasoning and rational thinking, acting as a scientist controlled experimentation allows us to see whether the small thing we change makes any difference.
The process of the sciences, Botany also called plant science, Geography evolves to geology is the study of Earth — its interior and the exterior surface. Other evolutions or Plant science, an evolution from mystic Alchemy to Chemistry, Balloons and Aeronautics and Aircraft, Material science and Ship building, Animal Biology, an evolution in Mathematics and then Astronomy and Celestial mechanics, Planetary Science, Orbital mechanics, the smaller stuff that made the Atom studied at Cern and Fermilab, Computer science,
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Universities Reeling from Trump Cuts Fear for a ‘Lost Generation’ of Scientists
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-cuts-threaten-univers
ities-could-lead-to-lost-generation-of-scientists/
Trump cuts threaten a measurement lab critical for advanced chips and medical devices
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/nx-s1-5340687/trump-cuts-nist-atomic-sp
ectra-lab-advanced-chips-medical-devices
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lysenkoism
The Most HATED Scientist of the Soviet Union
Trump is Mr Science Man?
and Science Given the Boot?
Opinion: Trump wants to disable NASA satellites measuring C02. Congress must not let him.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/08/28/opinion-trump-wants-to-disable
-nasa-satellites-measuring-c02-congress-must-not-let-him/
Why a NASA satellite that scientists and farmers rely on may be destroyed on purpose
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satel
lite-mission-threatened
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME