"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.

Apologies: groups.google.com is having difficulties these days.

And does science have a word or phrase to label those things that are
"hypotheses or assumptions which lead to quantified, testable
predictions"? Sounds almost like a "theory" to me. Are these
"quantified, testable predictions" repeatable? Do they depend or
certain conditions to apply? Do they have a domain of allicability?

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:
And does science have a word or phrase to label those things that are
"hypotheses or assumptions which lead to quantified, testable
predictions"? Sounds almost like a "theory" to me. Are these
"quantified, testable predictions" repeatable? Do they depend or
certain conditions to apply? Do they have a domain of allicability?

The universally quantified postulates/assumptions of any physical theory
are necessarily hypotheses since they cannot be check out empirically.
Why? Because these universals have infinitely many instances. Sometimes
conditions are made explicity, sometimes implicity. The true domain of
applicability of a theory is determined by expermiment. The boundry of
of theory is where it breaks. So that is how we know Newtonian or
Classical physics is good at low velocities and at scales greater than
the sub-atomic. Classical physics is now a heuristic since it has been
falified in all its generality.

Patrick, you would be much better off if you concentrated on essentials,
rather than names of things.

Bob Kolker

Patrick Reany:


And does science have a word or phrase to label those things that are
"hypotheses or assumptions which lead to quantified, testable
predictions"?

Yes. ``Hypotheses or assumptions that lead to testable predictions''.

Sounds almost like a "theory" to me. Are these
"quantified, testable predictions" repeatable? Do they depend or
certain conditions to apply? Do they have a domain of allicability?

No. All of that is a facade created by the physics kabal to maintain
a stranglehold over science.