true: in accordance with fact or reality, real or actual, accurate and exact
law: a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions
are present
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent
of the thing to be explained
According to the people who define the language, the definition of law comes significantly closer to the definition of truth than a theory does.
And the key words in the definition of a law are "always occurs if certain conditions are present", which means you can predict behaviour from a law. Given all the same initial conditions, the same outcome will be guaranteed. If a law fails to describe a condition that it guarantees, then yes, it is not a valid law. But if it fails to describe a system it was not meant to describe, that does not invalidate the law as a whole, it merely is not applicable to those situations. The Theory of Relativity does not invalidate Newtonian Laws, it merely shows that those laws are only valid under certain conditions.
A theory, however, does not guarantee predictability, i.e. given the same initial conditions, a different result might be achieved. That's why biology is so saturated with theories, because biological systems are adaptable, they might not always do the same thing. This fails the part of the definition of true which deals with exact. The component "supposition" to the definition of theory inherently embeds the possibility of the theory being incorrect.
Finally, a theory is only true as long as people "believe it to be true", a law is true in and of itself. One can only claim the Theory of Evolution to be truer than the Theory of Intelligent Design because it more accurately aligns with the higher truths of the natural laws of the universe.
While I agree with the Theory of Evolution and disagree with ID, it is you blueskies who are incorrect on this particular point. LAWS are the highest truths in science, not theories. It's not called the Theory of Convseration of Energy, it's a law. Theories are explanations that best fit the observed observed results, they are not absolute. So before you spout off about someone being ignorant, make sure YOU have your facts straight.
Slashdot Mirror
Oxford English Dictionary:
true: in accordance with fact or reality, real or actual, accurate and exact
law: a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions
are present
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent
of the thing to be explained
According to the people who define the language, the definition of law comes significantly closer to the definition of truth than a theory does.
And the key words in the definition of a law are "always occurs if certain conditions are present", which means you can predict behaviour from a law. Given all the same initial conditions, the same outcome will be guaranteed. If a law fails to describe a condition that it guarantees, then yes, it is not a valid law. But if it fails to describe a system it was not meant to describe, that does not invalidate the law as a whole, it merely is not applicable to those situations. The Theory of Relativity does not invalidate Newtonian Laws, it merely shows that those laws are only valid under certain conditions.
A theory, however, does not guarantee predictability, i.e. given the same initial conditions, a different result might be achieved. That's why biology is so saturated with theories, because biological systems are adaptable, they might not always do the same thing. This fails the part of the definition of true which deals with exact. The component "supposition" to the definition of theory inherently embeds the possibility of the theory being incorrect.
Finally, a theory is only true as long as people "believe it to be true", a law is true in and of itself. One can only claim the Theory of Evolution to be truer than the Theory of Intelligent Design because it more accurately aligns with the higher truths of the natural laws of the universe.
While I agree with the Theory of Evolution and disagree with ID, it is you blueskies who are incorrect on this particular point. LAWS are the highest truths in science, not theories. It's not called the Theory of Convseration of Energy, it's a law. Theories are explanations that best fit the observed observed results, they are not absolute. So before you spout off about someone being ignorant, make sure YOU have your facts straight.