NationStates Jolt Archive

Should a scientific theory be reclassified as a law if it is still accepted two-hundred years later with only fairly minor alterations?

We currently use the word 'theory' instead of 'law' to show that science can only disprove, not prove, and that science is not immutable (theories can change as new evidence comes to light).

However, I propose that after two-hundred years a theory should be examined critically by a group of top scientists and, if they still find it to be true, then it will be be given the honourific 'the law of...' rather than 'the theory of...' to show that it has stood the test of time and is unlikely to be disproved.

Why should we do this? For a start it will put a stop to the Creationists who constantly say that evolution's "only a theory", the ToE will be two hundred years old in just over fifty years time. It will also distinguish between newer theories which pave the way for new advancements and technologies and the older theories which form a bedrock of knowledge upon which basic ideas and understandings rest (thermodynamics, conservation of momentum etc.).

I realise that there would be disadvantages to this new form of classification but do you think they would be outweighed by the advantages?

Is there really any point? You know it won't stop the Creationists - they're like Jack Russels. Very stupid but very very persistent. And it'll just cause further problems with people arguing for early designation as law etc etc. It seems to be fine the way it s, so why change it?

Should a scientific theory be reclassified as a law if it is still accepted two-hundred years later with only fairly minor alterations?

We currently use the word 'theory' instead of 'law' to show that science can only disprove, not prove, and that science is not immutable (theories can change as new evidence comes to light).

However, I propose that after two-hundred years a theory should be examined critically by a group of top scientists and, if they still find it to be true, then it will be be given the honourific 'the law of...' rather than 'the theory of...' to show that it has stood the test of time and is unlikely to be disproved.

Why should we do this? For a start it will put a stop to the Creationists who constantly say that evolution's "only a theory", the ToE will be two hundred years old in just over fifty years time. It will also distinguish between newer theories which pave the way for new advancements and technologies and the older theories which form a bedrock of knowledge upon which basic ideas and understandings rest (thermodynamics, conservation of momentum etc.).

I realise that there would be disadvantages to this new form of classification but do you think they would be outweighed by the advantages?

The ToE has been changed several times in the last hundred years, so it would not apply as a "law" that early. Besides, we all know what happened to Newton's laws, do we?

I don't think that being able to destinguish between new and old theories would be that much helpful and I think that starting to use the term "law" again will only further the cause of creatonists - it will give their argument that ToE is itself a religious belief (with no real foundation in science) new ammunition.

Is there really any point? You know it won't stop the Creationists - they're like Jack Russels. Very stupid but very very persistent. And it'll just cause further problems with people arguing for early designation as law etc etc. It seems to be fine the way it s, so why change it?

Persistant they may be, but many of the creationists that are posting on this board are not stupid.

Certainly not! If scientists suddenly went and called stuff "facts" (or "law") which is not fully proven, they would be no bit better than creationists or other whackos :rolleyes:

Certainly not! If scientists suddenly went and called stuff "facts" (or "law") which is not fully proven, they would be no bit better than creationists or other whackos :rolleyes:

AFAIK we haven't reclassified the laws of thermodynamics as theories, we already have 'scientific laws' which have been carried over from before rigorous scientific testing.

The ToE has been changed several times in the last hundred years, so it would not apply as a "law" that early. Besides, we all know what happened to Newton's laws, do we?

As I said only major changes should disqualify a theory from law status, the changes to the ToE are numerous but the original core of it is still accepted.

I don't think that being able to destinguish between new and old theories would be that much helpful and I think that starting to use the term "law" again will only further the cause of creatonists - it will give their argument that ToE is itself a religious belief (with no real foundation in science) new ammunition.

Fair point. Maybe I should make it clear at this point that I'm not really sure about this idea, just read it somewhere and I wondered what everyone thought.

The real reason for not making such changes is that they can become confusing, since right around the time of the change, some people will refer to them by one name, and some will refer to them by the other name (at least, this is the reasoning provided within mathematics for not reclassifying theorems and lemmas based on importance). Thus, in general, (at least within mathematics) we use the terminology used when the idea first became prevalent.

Persistant they may be, but many of the creationists that are posting on this board are not stupid.

My apologies. Perhaps it would be more fitting to say Creationism is stupid :D

Should a scientific theory be reclassified as a law if it is still accepted two-hundred years later with only fairly minor alterations?

We currently use the word 'theory' instead of 'law' to show that science can only disprove, not prove, and that science is not immutable (theories can change as new evidence comes to light).

However, I propose that after two-hundred years a theory should be examined critically by a group of top scientists and, if they still find it to be true, then it will be be given the honourific 'the law of...' rather than 'the theory of...' to show that it has stood the test of time and is unlikely to be disproved.

Why should we do this? For a start it will put a stop to the Creationists who constantly say that evolution's "only a theory", the ToE will be two hundred years old in just over fifty years time. It will also distinguish between newer theories which pave the way for new advancements and technologies and the older theories which form a bedrock of knowledge upon which basic ideas and understandings rest (thermodynamics, conservation of momentum etc.).

I realise that there would be disadvantages to this new form of classification but do you think they would be outweighed by the advantages?It wouldn't do a thing except add fuel to the fire.

They usually call it a law or a principle when scientists give up on trying to disprove it. There's no specific time for that.

If there are still flaws in a theory, no matter how small and unimportant they are, then it is not a law. The evolution theory still has tiny holes it it. It won't hold back a lake of truth until those holes are gone.

A theory is not a law, a law is not a theory. You can't turn one into another.

Theory: "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."
Law: " a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions."

Evolution, for example is a theory. It's a fine theory but I can't take the "theory" of evolution and a human and see what is the next logical creature in the evolutionary chain. With the "law" of gravity I can take an apple relase it and know precisely where and how fast that apple will be moving 1/2 a second from the moment I release it.

Just as you can't always make a law out of a theory, you can't always make a theory out of a law. There were a whole lot of laws about how the atom prior to quantum mechanics but no solid theory about how the darn thing managed to exist in the first place. (Pre quantum theories could never explain the decay problem of the atom. If the electron did "orbit" the protron, then this orbit would cause a change in angular momentum which required the emission of electromagnetic waves and the collapse of the electron into the protron. No law of electromechanics prior to quantum mechanics could comeup with a good theory for why we weren't just a sea of neutrons.)

The term "law" is useless. All it does is imply that something is absolutely certain.

A theory is not a law, a law is not a theory. You can't turn one into another.

Theory: "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."
Law: " a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions."


Don't most laws begin as theories? Hence, couldn't a theory turn into a law?


Evolution, for example is a theory. It's a fine theory but I can't take the "theory" of evolution and a human and see what is the next logical creature in the evolutionary chain. With the "law" of gravity I can take an apple relase it and know precisely where and how fast that apple will be moving 1/2 a second from the moment I release it.


Wouldn't the next logical creature in the evolutionary chain be something different...that's bascially what evolution says.

You can't take a simple statement like that and make it a law. Laws are precise and accurate. Saying "the apple will fall" is not a law. Saying "the apple will fall and this will happen" is a law if it can't be disproved. Laws need to accept variables. They can't be proven wrong when a variable is applied, unless the law is written to allow such variable to be an accpetion. It's like Newton's laws.

He didn't say that something in motion will stay in motion. He said that unless a force of somekind is applied to it, an object in motion will stay in motion.

Therefore, saying that we will evolve isn't a law. It's too simple and vague. While it might be next to impossible, it can be disproven somehow.

There's a difference between theories and laws. Scientific laws explain how shit is. scientific theories explain why shit is the way it is.
EXAMPLE:
There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity.

The law of gravity states that unsupported objects fall towards the center of the earth. This is not up for debate as stuff always falls towards the center of the earth.

The theory of gravity says stuff falls towards the center of the earth because particles are attracted to eachother. This is (technically) up for debate. I could say no, stuff falls towards the center of the earth because invisible, weightless and otherwise unobservable pixies push everything down.

As to the idea of giving scientific theories or laws more credibility because they've been around longer, I don't think thats a good idea. To support my argument, Ill cite the fact that everyone thought the world was flat for more than 200 years.;)

Can there be laws in biology? I've only heard of laws in physics and chemistry. I always just assumed that it would be impractical to creat "laws" in biology, especially because what we know about it and genetics changes about every three months.

Can there be laws in biology? I've only heard of laws in physics and chemistry. I always just assumed that it would be impractical to creat "laws" in biology, especially because what we know about it and genetics changes about every three months.

I would wonder if some of the persistent relationships or behaviours in biology wouldn't just default to reasons of chemistry and/or physics.

Say you wanted to suggest that as a cell becomes larger, its ratio of surface area to volume decreases (or its ratio of volume to surface area increases, whichever), and from this say that its capacity to acquire nutrients and expel waste at sufficient rates to support its metabolism is reduced substantially by growth past a certain point. A lot of that might come down to physics and chemistry.

And biology as the adaptability of life to cope with.

This property of surface/volume would limit the size of various kinds of cells, but if some organism develops a way around it by having some kind of odd cell-shape or some improved means of absorbing and ejecting things, it could get around the problem.

So, I dunno...you can trust a mole of gas at 25 C and 720 torr to behave a certain way. Organisms might play around more.

I always thought that scientific laws no longer exist in the sense that they are immutable; given the fact that we don't know everything and that scientific theories are always being altered as new discoveries are made, it seems to require far too much faith to declare something a law...I mean, I can't think of one concept that would even qualify as a law other than the fundamental axioms necessary to construct the system.

Theories are more than adequate enough, since they work and can be used to make predictions accurately but still retain the ability to be changed or discarded when new evidence appears.

I always thought that scientific laws no longer exist in the sense that they are immutable; given the fact that we don't know everything and that scientific theories are always being altered as new discoveries are made, it seems to require far too much faith to declare something a law...I mean, I can't think of one concept that would even qualify as a law other than the fundamental axioms necessary to construct the system.

Theories are more than adequate enough, since they work and can be used to make predictions accurately but still retain the ability to be changed or discarded when new evidence appears.

I like that about theories, too. Revisability (that a word?) is a big strength, in my book.