333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: + +
→Usage of the term: a theory is completely diffrerent than a law
:Ed, this doesn't sound familiar to me. Can you point me to something where I can find those 3 arguments, or a portion of them, being used? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:25, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, this doesn't sound familiar to me. Can you point me to something where I can find those 3 arguments, or a portion of them, being used? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:25, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ed - As far as I can see, the opening sentence of the article has it about right, and I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. In science a '''law''' ''describes what (always) happens'', while a '''theory''' ''proposes an explanation of why it happens''. It's nothing to do with whether it's "thoroughly proven" and "universally accepted". A theory never becomes a law; it's a completely different kind of thing. The law of gravity says (roughly!) that an apple will always fall to the ground, but does not explain why. Phlogiston theory was an attempt at an explanation of observed phenomena; evolution theory is another attempt to explain a set of observations. Whether they are true or not, and whether you (or "many scientists") accept them or not, has nothing to do with it. Theories are not "second-class" laws, and they do not (as it were) aspire to become laws. Nobody is saying "Since it's a theory, it must be true" - so I don't see where your line of reasoning comes from, or where it is leading. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)