Well, then, you hit a home run. Good for you! Wow, you’re SO good at this!!
I think he was trying for the funny.
Knock it off. At the moment your contribution to the thread consists primarily of taunts. Let’s get back to the subject proposed by the OP.
As everyone knows, Rhymers have no sense of humor. I myself had my sarcasm, irony, and facetiousness glands removed in 1987, replacing them with a hatred-of-Welsh gland, a fear-of-hippos gland, and an extra penis, respectively.
I am not much of a reformer and was interested in whether another language had found an alternate formulation. If one wanted to try to change the terminology, maybe calling it “the equation of gravity” or the “second equation of thermodynamics” in physics courses might be a way. “Equation” does not even connote causality, or does it?
I suggest you reread my posts then, as your summary is inaccurate. But no matter, I need to get back to work.
It does imply mathematics, though. is there an actual matematical equation that can be shown to those that might say “Show me the equation, then!”
sorry 'bout that! (The glands, that is. The extra penis sounds a little more intriguing.)
But yeah, when a guy quotes Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, I’m trying for the funny.(Next time I’ll try harder)
But if ya wanna get back to all the fancy Doper-talk: yeah, I know that the law of gravity is not “do not step off cliffs”. The law is full of technical legal terms like “16 ft per second squared” and second derivatives of F=Ma and all kinds of fine print like that. See, that’s how you know it’s a law—it’s got fine print. And you have to obey it, too. Even without the cops.
From a science perspective, it’s just a way of acknowledging the consistency of an observation or proposition.
If you have a Hypothesis that stands up to continued scrutiny, it gets elevated to the status of a Theory. If the theory continues to stand up to scrutiny, it gets elevated to the status of a Law.
Gravity wasn’t always a law. It used to be the Theory of Universal Gravitation. The theory withstood scrutiny long enough that we now consider it a law.
Understood by most, if not all, who are posting in this thread, I think. The problem is the (sometimes deliberate)misuse of the terms “law” and “theory” by the religious to unknowing people.
I’ve a small nitpitck. You are assuming that “religious” and “unknowing” are separate, non-overlapping categories, which is not necessarily true. I can’t speak to the Episcopal and Nazarene teachers someone mentioned upthread, but the Pentecostal preachers I have known who asserted that natrual laws are prescriptive were doing so out of ignorance (or at least lackof education), not malice.
The OP is correct in asserting that calling established and apparently invariant scientific principles “laws” gives an incorrect impression to uneducated persons. I only disagree with the OP in that I think it doesn’t matter; the attitude is too deeply entrenched to be corrected by a change in scientific terminology.
That was the reason I used the term “sometimes deliberate”, but you are perhaps correct that a mere change in terminology wouldn’t be any sort of solution. We’ll just have to keep doing this the hard way-better scientific outreach, thumbscrews, and nipple clamps attached to truck batteries.
You all seem to be making this harder than it has to be. The word law comes from Old Norse, where it meant “something laid down or fixed.” “Law” has nothing to do with prescription or punishment, but rather to do with having been determined, fixed, and set.
The universal speed limit and the highway speed limit are both set. It’s really that simple. No need to bring God into it.
Close, but not quite. It’s a linguistic evolution in science, toward greater precision, that is responsible. “Law” is an older usage in science for what we now call “Theory”. Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s law, Boyle’s law, etc. where the dominant theories of their time (Maxwell and Boyle are still the dominant theories), but they were called “laws” back then. The word “law” was slowly abandoned in favor of the word “theory”, with its current scientific definition, precisely because of linguistic confusion with the essentially arbitrary and changeable “laws” of a legislature. Or equally arbitrary, but presumably unchangeable “laws” of a “law-giver” God. We don’t talk of “The Law of General Relativity”, even though it stands up much better than Newton’s “Law of Universal Gravitation”. That scientists are still referring to the older ones as “law” is just a hold-over from having referred to them, as such, for up to several hundred years in some cases. General Relativity is never going to be referred to as “law”. Ever.
[sub]Unless scientists see a need to change the terminology for linguistic reasons, yet again. SHHH! Don’t tell anyone…[/sub]
Are we sure the meaning of the word now is the same as it was to the Old Norse, and if not, couldn’t this be the etymological fallacy variant of the genetic fallacy?
It’s amazing to me that a doper could have lived his Internet life shielded from this - it’s pretty much ubiquitous in arguments for the existence of god(s). So much so that the OP didn’t even have to mention theology for everyone to know exactly what he’s talking about. Everyone but you anyway.
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Evidence_for_God_from_Logic
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/hereis.htm
http://www.hgtaylor.net/psalm19.htm
[quote]
Isaac Newton reasoned thus:[ul]
[li]There are Laws of nature[/li][li]Therefore there must be a Law Giver [/li][li]The force that makes an apple fall is the same force that keeps the moon in orbit[/li][li]Therefore the universe must have one law giver.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I could easily go on all day.
To be fair, Newton actually was a religious nutbag.
I wouldn’t have known this, but then I generally don’t spend my time looking at arguments for or against the existence of god(s). The subject bores me. As a one-time physics major, I thought you were really interested in the history of physics. Now, that’s interesting.
The question the OP has asked several times but nobody seems to be seeing is ‘do other languages have the same issues with the word “law” that English does?’
For example, I put “I understand traffic laws. I understand the laws of physics.” into Google translate and chose Finnish as the output. The result was “Ymmärrän liikenteen lakeja. Ymmärrän fysiikan lakeja.” It looks like the direct translation of law is lakeja, but would a Finnish physicist actually say it this way, or do they have a better word for it?
The usage of the word law in this connection is not universal in all languages. E.g. in german the laws of thermodynamics are more commonly called “Hauptsätze der Thermodynamik”, which would roughly be prinicpal or main theorems of thermodynamics. Newtons laws are still mainly known as laws also in german, though.