ATM [OT] Truth Theory

["Jon Bertrand"<jonb@cirris.com>]

This is OT but it's kind of interesting - 

It was said:

>We do not make up laws.  At its core, science observes.  A particular
>phenomenon is observed.  It must then be explained.  A scientist 
>hypothesizes an explanation for the phenonmenon (a theory) and then 
>tests that hypothesis.  If the hypothesis adequately explains the phenomenon 
>through testing, it may be accepted as a law.  

This is a common misconception:  A theory gets "promoted" to a law.  It doesn't.

A law is "a generalization of observations."  Nothing more.  The Law is always
true if the oberservations are correct (whatever correct that means).  Laws
never explain why, they just tell you what happens.

A Theory tries to explain why the Law occurs.

>Newtons Laws of Gravitation are a case in point.

Yes they are.  The "Laws of Gravity" say objects attract.  Newton and many
others nailed that observation down to a nice generalization expressed in a
simple formula that went something like  F = M1 * M2 / D^something.

It doesn't say why - it just says "objects attract by this much."

Newton didn't know why it happened -  Last I heard there was no good Theory of
Gravity that explained why.

Ditto with Magnetics.  No real solid theory.  But lots of Laws telling you what
_will_ happen - no theory telling you why.

[I'll get flamed for this but...]

There is no real formal process known as science.  Lots of people think there
is, but ask the guys doing the research and none of them are using the "official
rulebook."  The official rulebook doesn't exist.

This topic is cover in depth on various Internet sites.  Look for science
misconceptions.  You'll find lots of lens discussions there...

Jon Bertrand
jonb@cirris.com