ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 239 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Language of science I: Theories and laws; II: Degrees of knowing
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 @ 22:44:39 UTC by vlad

Science From PhysicsToday.org/Letters:Language of science I: Theories and laws: It was interesting to see in the January 2007 issue of PHYSICS TODAY two pieces that touched on the same question from two different viewpoints. That question is whether an explanation is "just a theory" or an established fact.

Helen Quinn's Reference Frame article, "Belief and Knowledge—A Plea About Language" (page 8), dealt quite generally with the interesting ways in which words are used. Scientists may use them one way while nonscientists interpret them differently. Richard Kadel's letter, just a few pages later (page 12), lamented the fact that relativity is referred to as Einstein's theory when, he argues, it really should be called Einstein's laws of relativity.

President Ronald Reagan's famous comment about evolution being "only" a theory comes to mind. We in the sciences need to have a way of determining when an idea—whether we call it a hypothesis, a theory, or a guess—has been established and accepted well enough that it deserves to be called a law.

Quinn's article correctly emphasizes that some of the words we use have rather flexible meaning even among scientists. She notes, however, that scientists are usually aware of the degree to which any particular idea is supported by evidence, accepted by qualified colleagues, and considered well established by the scientific community, regardless of whether the idea is referred to as a theory, law, hypothesis, model, or other name. At the same time, Quinn says that nonscientists do not always understand the extent to which any given idea is established and accepted. They usually rely on the often mistaken belief that certain terms have rigid meanings; specifically, they believe that a law is a firmly established principle and a theory is little more than a guess. That brings us to Kadel's letter.

Kadel accepts the fact that, whether we scientists like it or not, the general public thinks that anything called a law is a solid description of the truth and that a theory is yet to be proven. Therefore, he argues, relativity should no longer be called a theory, but instead should be a set of laws. I wholeheartedly agree. Yet I have to raise the question: Who decides?

I propose that a recognized body of physicists, such as the International Uni0n of Pure and Applied Physics, the American Physical Society, or the American Institute of Physics, should do this for ideas related to physics. The determining group should then use the new term in its own activities and publications and strongly encourage all its members to adopt the term.

Following Kadel's suggestion, I think the designated group should start by declaring that "Einstein's theory of relativity" should henceforth be called "Einstein's laws of relativity" and should promote the idea to the public. The change (and the discussions leading up to it) could be likened to the recent decision by the International Astronomical Uni0n to state that Pluto is not a planet.

The designated organization should then cooperate with other groups that make such declarations by agreeing to support their declarations. Thus, I would hope an appropriate biology or geology organization would declare that the theory of evolution has now been sufficiently well established that it will henceforth be called "the laws of evolution" and that the physics community would support biologists or geologists in promoting this change in nomenclature.

William Hooper
(Fernandina Beach, Florida)

Read all these interesting letters here

--------------

Language of science II: Degrees of knowing

Helen Quinn (PHYSICS TODAY, January 2007, page 8) makes a very good point that the general public often misunderstands the meaning of "belief" and "theory" as used by scientists. The problem originates, I believe, in the way science is taught in the schools. As Thomas Kuhn noted long ago in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962), science is taught like religion: You'd better believe it or you will get a bad grade. Fundamentalists opposed to evolution have a stronger threat: You'd better not believe it or you will go to Hell.

Today, as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act, US public schools place increased emphasis on testing. Unfortunately this motivates teaching to the test, with little emphasis on the scientific method.

The most important thing to be taught is how scientists have come to believe the present theories, usually after a long struggle, as a result of many experiments and observations. Even for a limited part of physics, it is hard for a student to recapitulate in a semester what may have taken scientists many years to discover. There is always an attempt to cover too much material, as evidenced by the weight of the latest university physics textbooks, which only the stronger students can lift. There is no simple solution, but it is important to identify the problem.

Lincoln Wolfenstein
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Read all letters here

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Language of science I: Theories and laws; II: Degrees of knowing" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Language of science I: Theories and laws; II: Degrees of knowing (Score: 1)
by modernsteam on Thursday, July 05, 2007 @ 19:27:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
I refuse to consider both Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Darwin's Theory of Evolution as "Laws" at this time. But it does not mean, however, that I don't think those theories have not been confirmed time and again. But every now and then very logical arguments arise from established physicists, biologists, and engineers with proven records of an extraordinary degree of scientific knowledge relevant to their discipline, challenging those Theories. In biology, the apparent non-random evidence of such things as the structures of opthamological systems in various animals from house flies to all of us primates come to mind. I do not dare name the physicists who I think called Einstein's Relativity Theories into question, saying they were special cases which worked as claimed most of the time, but not all the time. I may have misunderstood their arguments, but when I read, "Einstein was wrong" from any PhD-level physicist, and it is so substantiated, then I must at least take it on advisement for the time being. So when I communicate with others, scientists, engineers, or not, I will refer to Einstein's and Darwin's Theories as Theories, no matter what any so-called "respected" physicist or other scientist directs me to do. They are not my bosses, nor are those who support them in their intention to change theories into "Laws". I therefore will not conform, but will come to my own decision without yielding to "professional" pressure, if I don't die first. Their arguments of a substantial body of empirical evidence over the centuries is not enough for me, for all it takes is but one - just one - instance of a non-complying phenomenon or event to have me nullify an accepted or revered "Law' in my own mind, and hence, in my communications to others, no matter the status or socio-economic position of those others.

Hal Ade.





 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.