wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr.
Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least
amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early
days
of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the
nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a
kind
of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it
can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or
assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from
Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the
roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of
the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is
bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any
technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start
a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by
principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of
applicability
then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning
of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt
as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called
into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable".

In science it does not mean immutable because you have studied science
and
know what it means in that context. But from a dictionary - 'Something,
such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority'
or
from the same dictionary regarding scientific laws: 'A statement
describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for
all
cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity' It
is
obvious the person who wrote that definition does not understand science
which of course Mati does.

Well, that dictionary writers often don't understand science, that's
not news.

It is not.

Thus, people who want to know the meaning of a scientific
term should look up in science literature, not general dictionary.

As a starting point it is ok. But nothing can replace actual experience.
And that is a major concern I have with what Patrick writes. Even if you
could come up with a definition agreed by all it will be of limited value -
nothing can replace actual experience.

Same as people who want to understand the meaning of a medical term,
should look up in a medical dictionary.

Further more, even if we are talking about common language, not
scientific usage, people (at least those who listen to the news and/or
read newspapers) realize well that laws are being made, modified,
amended or nullified daily. thus, nothing "immutable" about them.

Agreed.


Take another example from the same dictionary -
'The science and study of law; jurisprudence' - man made laws a science?
The point of what I said above it to bring into focus the way the word
law
is used in the English language and even defined in dictionaries is not
quite the way it is used in science.

Yeah. And the way the word "mill" is used in machine shops in not
quite the way it is used among the general public. The word "cut"
when uttered by a movie director means something quite different than
same word when uttered by a surgeon. And "head" means something quite
different to a sailor than to a landlubber. Heck, *within* science
the word "vector" carries quite different meaning to a biologist than
to a physicist. So? Over time any profession or activity generates
its own jargon which may include words which are only used within said
activity and are meaningless to outsiders, as well as words which
exist in the common language but which are used within said activity
with different meaning. Nothing new about it. And if and when a
"laymen" wants to understand the language of said activity, it is his
business to ask and learn it, not to tell the people using it what it
should mean.

Valid points.


That being the case we either have two
choices - make it clear what it means or do not use it. I prefer the
second
approach.

I totally, absolutely and irrevocably reject the second approach. It
amounts to giving the Patrick Reany's of the world a veto power over
how others use their language.

Fair enough apporach.


It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Correct - it is only a label. But the use of that label and its meaning
in
other contexts can engender confusion in those who do not know what is
meant
eg the person that defined its scientific use in the dictionary.

I repeat, it is the business of the laymen attempting to understand
the language of a given profession, to ask questions. The fact that
there are some who're incapable of learning is their problem, not
everybody else's.

The discussion is downright silly because you and I know what it means.
It is not downright silly in the context of refuting anal retentives
like Patrick Reany who harp on about it.

Aha. so, therefore, you suggest giving in to anal retentives like
Patrick Reany and changing your language to their liking. Not a good
idea.


What Steve Carlit suggested was it was a word that carried historical
baggage and perhaps had outlived it usefulness. I tend to agree. But you
have a point as well - any one who actually attempt to understand modern
physical literature, and certainly certainly someone of Steve Carlips
caliber, would not be confused. So I guess my current position is - who
gives a ****. Anyone who actually takes the time and effort to understand
physics will not have a problem. I personally will try and reduce my use of
the term but have no problems with others using it. Indeed due to its use
in the POR, ideal gas law etc I doubt it will ever go away.

Thanks
Bill

In article , "Bill Hobba" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr.
Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least
amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the early
days
of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover the
nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a
kind
of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what it
can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or
assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away from
Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to the
roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly of
the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality is
bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any
technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to start
a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by
principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of
applicability
then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a questioning
of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no doubt
as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be called
into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable".

In science it does not mean immutable because you have studied science
and
know what it means in that context. But from a dictionary - 'Something,
such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority'
or
from the same dictionary regarding scientific laws: 'A statement
describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for
all
cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity' It
is
obvious the person who wrote that definition does not understand science
which of course Mati does.

Well, that dictionary writers often don't understand science, that's
not news.

It is not.

Thus, people who want to know the meaning of a scientific
term should look up in science literature, not general dictionary.

As a starting point it is ok. But nothing can replace actual experience.
And that is a major concern I have with what Patrick writes. Even if you
could come up with a definition agreed by all it will be of limited value -
nothing can replace actual experience.

Indeed, fully agreed. Let me take it a step further. A definition
uses words (again) and these words, ultimately, are tokens. Their
meaning, for us, comes from the associations they create in our brains
and these associations tie to prior experiences. Absent appropriate
experiences, the words mean nothing. they're equivalent to computer
icons which are associated with no program.

And that's why accomodating laymen, in any field of activity, can only
go so far. We may strive to come with clear definitions, such that
even a person with no prior experience in the field can understand
what it is about. But, strictly speaking, this is an impossible goal.
Even if the laymen can memorize the definitions and mouth them, the
various terms used are just "icons pointing nowhere" till he actually
gains some experience in the field. It doesn't have to be expert
level experience, but some experience is necessary.

Same as people who want to understand the meaning of a medical term,
should look up in a medical dictionary.

Further more, even if we are talking about common language, not
scientific usage, people (at least those who listen to the news and/or
read newspapers) realize well that laws are being made, modified,
amended or nullified daily. thus, nothing "immutable" about them.

Agreed.


Take another example from the same dictionary -
'The science and study of law; jurisprudence' - man made laws a science?
The point of what I said above it to bring into focus the way the word
law
is used in the English language and even defined in dictionaries is not
quite the way it is used in science.

Yeah. And the way the word "mill" is used in machine shops in not
quite the way it is used among the general public. The word "cut"
when uttered by a movie director means something quite different than
same word when uttered by a surgeon. And "head" means something quite
different to a sailor than to a landlubber. Heck, *within* science
the word "vector" carries quite different meaning to a biologist than
to a physicist. So? Over time any profession or activity generates
its own jargon which may include words which are only used within said
activity and are meaningless to outsiders, as well as words which
exist in the common language but which are used within said activity
with different meaning. Nothing new about it. And if and when a
"laymen" wants to understand the language of said activity, it is his
business to ask and learn it, not to tell the people using it what it
should mean.

Valid points.


That being the case we either have two
choices - make it clear what it means or do not use it. I prefer the
second
approach.

I totally, absolutely and irrevocably reject the second approach. It
amounts to giving the Patrick Reany's of the world a veto power over
how others use their language.

Fair enough apporach.


It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Correct - it is only a label. But the use of that label and its meaning
in
other contexts can engender confusion in those who do not know what is
meant
eg the person that defined its scientific use in the dictionary.

I repeat, it is the business of the laymen attempting to understand
the language of a given profession, to ask questions. The fact that
there are some who're incapable of learning is their problem, not
everybody else's.

The discussion is downright silly because you and I know what it means.
It is not downright silly in the context of refuting anal retentives
like Patrick Reany who harp on about it.

Aha. so, therefore, you suggest giving in to anal retentives like
Patrick Reany and changing your language to their liking. Not a good
idea.


What Steve Carlit suggested was it was a word that carried historical
baggage and perhaps had outlived it usefulness. I tend to agree.

Yes, and I agree as well. Yet, we've a bit of a problem here. As the
culture evoleves, words acquire new meanings and, at times, lose some
of their old meanings. Should we, each time this happens, go ahead
and rewrite all prior literature using the current terms (with the
full knowledge that the meanings may change again). This is a heavy
burden and it carries the risk of losing the continuity of our
cultural development. Or should we rather acknowledge that same word
may carry multiple meanings, depending on field of activity and the
time frame involved?

Ironically, the word "icon" I used above refers, originally, to a
picture with a religious theme, symbolizing specific religious figure
and/or event. Yet, we're no problem using it in a completely
different connotation.

But you
have a point as well - any one who actually attempt to understand modern
physical literature, and certainly certainly someone of Steve Carlips
caliber, would not be confused. So I guess my current position is - who
gives a ****.

My feelings exatly.

Anyone who actually takes the time and effort to understand
physics will not have a problem.

And anyone who doesn't take the time, cannot be helped.

I personally will try and reduce my use of
the term but have no problems with others using it. Indeed due to its use
in the POR, ideal gas law etc I doubt it will ever go away.

I doubt it too. It is rooted too strongly in history to be replaced
without creating too much confusion. Still, if over the future
centuries the term is gradually eliminated, I've no problem with it,
as long as its elimination stems from a conscious decision by
scientists, not an attempt to fend off criticism by cranks like Reany.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill
Hobba"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill
Hobba"
writes:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:n8Itc.4418$IB.1959@attbi_s04...
wrote:


I suggested that his blurb go into the FAQ because more
kiddies
have had confusion about the use of the word "law". Mr.
Carlip's
writeup was intelligent, well-written, and concise. That
means
that his explanation was easily understood using the least
amount
of words, leaving enough pointers for those who want to learn
more about the subject. I consider it a work of art.

The word "Law" is unfortunate. The usage originated in the
early
days
of
natural philosophy when it was thought that we could discover
the
nature
of reality and intuit God's will. Law in that usage suggested a
kind
of
decree (from the Almighty).

We have a much less eleveted view of what science is and what
it
can
help us to know. So now Law means general hypotheses or
assumptions
which lead to quantified, testable predictions.

Our best observations are about 15 orders of magnitude away
from
Planck
Length so any notion that we -know- physical reality down to
the
roots
is a fancy and a delusion. We are far, far away from the Belly
of
the
Beast and even if we could peak there is no guarantee we could
comprehend what we see. Our understanding of physical reality
is
bounded
above by the limitiations of our brain function plus any
technological
crutches we we use to aid our brains.

Bob Kolker

[Note: groups.google.com claimed I couldn't reply so I had to
start
a
new thread. Hope this gets resolved soon.]

The origin of the concept of "physical law" is irrelevant.

It is not. As further investigation indicates nature works by
principles
other than immutable laws she must obey in all domains of
applicability
then
it is perfectly reasonable to consign such a concept to the dustbin
of
history. The progress of 20th century physics has seen a
questioning
of
things that were accepted as immutable in the 19th. I have no
doubt
as
father progress is made things we now accept for granted may be
called
into
question. That being the case using terminology suggesting such is
inappropriate.

Since when does the term "law" suggests "immutable".

In science it does not mean immutable because you have studied science
and
know what it means in that context. But from a dictionary -
'Something,
such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned
authority'
or
from the same dictionary regarding scientific laws: 'A statement
describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena
for
all
cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity'
It
is
obvious the person who wrote that definition does not understand
science
which of course Mati does.

Well, that dictionary writers often don't understand science, that's
not news.

It is not.

Thus, people who want to know the meaning of a scientific
term should look up in science literature, not general dictionary.

As a starting point it is ok. But nothing can replace actual experience.
And that is a major concern I have with what Patrick writes. Even if you
could come up with a definition agreed by all it will be of limited
value -
nothing can replace actual experience.

Indeed, fully agreed. Let me take it a step further. A definition
uses words (again) and these words, ultimately, are tokens. Their
meaning, for us, comes from the associations they create in our brains
and these associations tie to prior experiences. Absent appropriate
experiences, the words mean nothing. they're equivalent to computer
icons which are associated with no program.

And that's why accomodating laymen, in any field of activity, can only
go so far.

A valid point and not emphasized enough in IMHO. Feynman in his book the
Character of Physical Law made this point as plain as day.

We may strive to come with clear definitions, such that
even a person with no prior experience in the field can understand
what it is about. But, strictly speaking, this is an impossible goal.
Even if the laymen can memorize the definitions and mouth them, the
various terms used are just "icons pointing nowhere" till he actually
gains some experience in the field. It doesn't have to be expert
level experience, but some experience is necessary.

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that merely talking about
it - we are expected to do it.


Same as people who want to understand the meaning of a medical term,
should look up in a medical dictionary.

Further more, even if we are talking about common language, not
scientific usage, people (at least those who listen to the news and/or
read newspapers) realize well that laws are being made, modified,
amended or nullified daily. thus, nothing "immutable" about them.

Agreed.


Take another example from the same dictionary -
'The science and study of law; jurisprudence' - man made laws a
science?
The point of what I said above it to bring into focus the way the word
law
is used in the English language and even defined in dictionaries is
not
quite the way it is used in science.

Yeah. And the way the word "mill" is used in machine shops in not
quite the way it is used among the general public. The word "cut"
when uttered by a movie director means something quite different than
same word when uttered by a surgeon. And "head" means something quite
different to a sailor than to a landlubber. Heck, *within* science
the word "vector" carries quite different meaning to a biologist than
to a physicist. So? Over time any profession or activity generates
its own jargon which may include words which are only used within said
activity and are meaningless to outsiders, as well as words which
exist in the common language but which are used within said activity
with different meaning. Nothing new about it. And if and when a
"laymen" wants to understand the language of said activity, it is his
business to ask and learn it, not to tell the people using it what it
should mean.

Valid points.


That being the case we either have two
choices - make it clear what it means or do not use it. I prefer the
second
approach.

I totally, absolutely and irrevocably reject the second approach. It
amounts to giving the Patrick Reany's of the world a veto power over
how others use their language.

Fair enough apporach.


It is a label,
that's all, and in matters not in the least whether we use the term
"law", "rule" or "gunterplantz". ****That's**** ***alll***. This
whole discussion is downright silly.

Correct - it is only a label. But the use of that label and its
meaning
in
other contexts can engender confusion in those who do not know what is
meant
eg the person that defined its scientific use in the dictionary.

I repeat, it is the business of the laymen attempting to understand
the language of a given profession, to ask questions. The fact that
there are some who're incapable of learning is their problem, not
everybody else's.

The discussion is downright silly because you and I know what it
means.
It is not downright silly in the context of refuting anal retentives
like Patrick Reany who harp on about it.

Aha. so, therefore, you suggest giving in to anal retentives like
Patrick Reany and changing your language to their liking. Not a good
idea.


What Steve Carlit suggested was it was a word that carried historical
baggage and perhaps had outlived it usefulness. I tend to agree.

Yes, and I agree as well. Yet, we've a bit of a problem here. As the
culture evoleves, words acquire new meanings and, at times, lose some
of their old meanings. Should we, each time this happens, go ahead
and rewrite all prior literature using the current terms (with the
full knowledge that the meanings may change again).

The practicalities of doing that are enormous.

Thanks
Bill

This is a heavy
burden and it carries the risk of losing the continuity of our
cultural development. Or should we rather acknowledge that same word
may carry multiple meanings, depending on field of activity and the
time frame involved?

Ironically, the word "icon" I used above refers, originally, to a
picture with a religious theme, symbolizing specific religious figure
and/or event. Yet, we're no problem using it in a completely
different connotation.

But you
have a point as well - any one who actually attempt to understand modern
physical literature, and certainly certainly someone of Steve Carlips
caliber, would not be confused. So I guess my current position is - who
gives a ****.

My feelings exatly.

Anyone who actually takes the time and effort to understand
physics will not have a problem.

And anyone who doesn't take the time, cannot be helped.

I personally will try and reduce my use of
the term but have no problems with others using it. Indeed due to its
use
in the POR, ideal gas law etc I doubt it will ever go away.

I doubt it too. It is rooted too strongly in history to be replaced
without creating too much confusion. Still, if over the future
centuries the term is gradually eliminated, I've no problem with it,
as long as its elimination stems from a conscious decision by
scientists, not an attempt to fend off criticism by cranks like Reany.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , "Bill Hobba" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:

wrote in message
...

...

Thus, people who want to know the meaning of a scientific
term should look up in science literature, not general dictionary.

As a starting point it is ok. But nothing can replace actual experience.
And that is a major concern I have with what Patrick writes. Even if you
could come up with a definition agreed by all it will be of limited
value -
nothing can replace actual experience.

Indeed, fully agreed. Let me take it a step further. A definition
uses words (again) and these words, ultimately, are tokens. Their
meaning, for us, comes from the associations they create in our brains
and these associations tie to prior experiences. Absent appropriate
experiences, the words mean nothing. they're equivalent to computer
icons which are associated with no program.

And that's why accomodating laymen, in any field of activity, can only
go so far.

A valid point and not emphasized enough in IMHO. Feynman in his book the
Character of Physical Law made this point as plain as day.

Yes, he certainly did.

We may strive to come with clear definitions, such that
even a person with no prior experience in the field can understand
what it is about. But, strictly speaking, this is an impossible goal.
Even if the laymen can memorize the definitions and mouth them, the
various terms used are just "icons pointing nowhere" till he actually
gains some experience in the field. It doesn't have to be expert
level experience, but some experience is necessary.

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that merely talking about
it - we are expected to do it.

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article ,
wrote:
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:
snip

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that
merely talking about it - we are expected to do it.

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

TW used to say, "...a small matter of programming."

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article , writes:
In article ,
wrote:
In article , "Bill Hobba"
writes:
snip

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that
merely talking about it - we are expected to do it.

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

TW used to say, "...a small matter of programming."

Aha. Details, details:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
news
In article ,
writes:
In article ,
wrote:
In article , "Bill
Hobba"
writes:
snip

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that
merely talking about it - we are expected to do it.

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

TW used to say, "...a small matter of programming."

Aha. Details, details:-)

I think it was Dykstra that said when asked what programming language do you
use - he answered - graduate student.

Thanks
Bill

In article , "Bill Hobba" writes:

wrote in message
news
In article ,
writes:
In article ,
wrote:
In article , "Bill
Hobba"
writes:
snip

True. I did a degree in applied mathematics. I remember one of the
lecturers saying those that more is expected of us that
merely talking about it - we are expected to do it.

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

TW used to say, "...a small matter of programming."

Aha. Details, details:-)

I think it was Dykstra that said when asked what programming language do you
use - he answered - graduate student.

Now that's a good one:-)))) And pretty common, in fact.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

"One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it,
you have no certainty until you try."
Sophocles

Ken Muldrew

(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

In article , (Ken Muldrew) writes:
wrote:

Heck, I recall various topics which I studied, passed exams on, even
got decent grades, only to find later when I actually started using
them in real work that I really didn't understand what I'm doing. No
practice, no knowledge.

"One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it,
you have no certainty until you try."
Sophocles

Neat, I wasn't aware of this quote. These Greeks were damn smart.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"