You seem to be confused, a law is ALL those things. Not any of the above.
1. doesn't apply to theory, in that a theory can have a great deal of unrelated predictions that do not have definitional relationship. Horizontal gene transfer, and say... punctuated equilibrium cannot be combined into a single sensible statement about evolution, but they're both components of the theory. 2. I'd love to see you state everything about orbital dynamics in this way. Or dark matter(as a theory). 3. The one that MOST applies to theories as well. 4. Pretty clearly doesn't apply to any theory.
.
1. Summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
4. are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."
Yeah, laws are part of theories. Any theories that lacked laws that comprise it would be in a pretty sorry state(string theory, I'm kinda-sorta looking at you).
Now, "proof" is a dangerous word in science. It's vague, it's literally impossible to do in a truly strict sense within the scientific method, and people are quick to take the term to mean something it doesn't.
Vagueness: It can mean anything from basic empirical evidence of a contentious event occurring(like proof that flies lay eggs) to a theoretical framework so soundly tested and retested as to lack detectible flaws(like the law of attraction).
Impossibility: The philosophical or mathematical proof takes premises, and using absolute rules arrives at inescapable and undeniable conclusions. In a sense, this is possible with science: Assume an object is in motion at a certain velocity v. Assume it's position is x. Assume no force is applied. After t time, inescapably it's new position is x+v*t, by deduction. But science allows that to be wrong just as soon as someone comes forward with an experiment where it doesn't happen(though our first guess would be that one of the assumptions is untrue, given just how reliable laws of motion are). You can never have a proof that is just true.
Quick to confusion: The various definitions here are easy for people to conflate or mistake. Just look at people expecting "proof" of evolution. They simultaneously want empirical evidence of a contentious hypothesis, like you'd test in a lab, and applying the concept to an entire branch of study, which has an entirely different idea of "proof". It all adds up to a scenario where people don't get what it is that they don't get.
And they have very high expectations from pop culture: person in lab coat gets item, "aha we know what this is now that we've run 'tests'". They see science as much the same.
Nope, their front page also has an article about an app for your phone that provides cookie recipes. Is there no depth their reporters won't provide on an important story?
"Congestion" as a descriptor doesn't apply to either of the others. Hope that helps.
As to the inane question it asks at the end:
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
If you aren't paying, and you aren't taking ownership of something, is it really a violation of import restrictions? I mean, how does that hurt the sanctions against Cuba, for example?
If yes: Only use language defined standard libraries and build everything else you need yourself, and even then trust but verify. The third party libraries are always going to be cobbled together.
If you don't end your paper with "Further research is needed" a secret cabal of other researchers also applying for grants in your field come into your bedroom at night, drag you off, and tie you to a post in the beam of the LHC.
I've held this suspicion too. Why deliver a game people have been begging for like oversexed whores for years, when you can deliver the game and a tech improvement that'll bust everyone's balls, propelling the former to "technical marvel" and instantly making a market for the latter?
You don't actually know what the words meant. This is the problem here. There isn't some "statist/libertarian" divide in our argument, but a "know what words fucking mean/don't" divide.
God dammit, does no one know that "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with progressive liberalism?
Are there that many people that can't go to fucking wikipedia and looking up words. The stupid-ass, libertarian dream world is a "liberal democracy" but you're too caught up in the idea of your own persecution, that you can't imagine a world where "liberal" means anything other than "those people".
Are you slow? Do you have trouble with the simple idea of contextual grammars, upon which our entire language is built? I mean, if I called you a neoliberal idiot, would you assume I'm accusing you of being a leftist? What is wrong with you?
Slashdot Mirror
Hypothetically, if this were a truly endemic problem, what would be a valid solution from waaaaaaay up at the policy level?
You seem to be confused, a law is ALL those things. Not any of the above.
1. doesn't apply to theory, in that a theory can have a great deal of unrelated predictions that do not have definitional relationship. Horizontal gene transfer, and say... punctuated equilibrium cannot be combined into a single sensible statement about evolution, but they're both components of the theory.
2. I'd love to see you state everything about orbital dynamics in this way. Or dark matter(as a theory).
3. The one that MOST applies to theories as well.
4. Pretty clearly doesn't apply to any theory.
Nothing after "evolution is a fact" that you said is actually a true statement.
No, incorrect. It's a particular way of stating a specific, simple idea that's well supported.
Wikipedia stated it better than I could
.
1. Summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
4. are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."
I'd have to quietly disagree and re-assert the various definitions I proposed earlier as all having some use.
Yeah, laws are part of theories. Any theories that lacked laws that comprise it would be in a pretty sorry state(string theory, I'm kinda-sorta looking at you).
Now, "proof" is a dangerous word in science. It's vague, it's literally impossible to do in a truly strict sense within the scientific method, and people are quick to take the term to mean something it doesn't.
Vagueness:
It can mean anything from basic empirical evidence of a contentious event occurring(like proof that flies lay eggs) to a theoretical framework so soundly tested and retested as to lack detectible flaws(like the law of attraction).
Impossibility:
The philosophical or mathematical proof takes premises, and using absolute rules arrives at inescapable and undeniable conclusions. In a sense, this is possible with science: Assume an object is in motion at a certain velocity v. Assume it's position is x. Assume no force is applied. After t time, inescapably it's new position is x+v*t, by deduction. But science allows that to be wrong just as soon as someone comes forward with an experiment where it doesn't happen(though our first guess would be that one of the assumptions is untrue, given just how reliable laws of motion are). You can never have a proof that is just true.
Quick to confusion:
The various definitions here are easy for people to conflate or mistake. Just look at people expecting "proof" of evolution. They simultaneously want empirical evidence of a contentious hypothesis, like you'd test in a lab, and applying the concept to an entire branch of study, which has an entirely different idea of "proof". It all adds up to a scenario where people don't get what it is that they don't get.
And they have very high expectations from pop culture: person in lab coat gets item, "aha we know what this is now that we've run 'tests'". They see science as much the same.
Nope, their front page also has an article about an app for your phone that provides cookie recipes. Is there no depth their reporters won't provide on an important story?
And a number have lasted your entire lifetime. And some have been created during your lifetime.
Cars.
"Congestion" as a descriptor doesn't apply to either of the others. Hope that helps.
As to the inane question it asks at the end:
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
Yeah, all those clinically depressed babies. Depression onset doesn't usually occur at all until pubescence.
That's an American company making money. That doesn't benefit Cuba at all.
Ah, but then the "don't ask" policy officially quashes the "minor fame" aspect. What other avenues of fake profit exist?
And who decides which are which?
If society found a law unjust, it would be repealed.
If that is an individual, and not society at large, then all laws are unjust in someone's eyes.
Only in an ideal world. We don't have that luxury.
If you aren't paying, and you aren't taking ownership of something, is it really a violation of import restrictions? I mean, how does that hurt the sanctions against Cuba, for example?
Suicide. You can pretty much guarantee the depression lasted their entire life there.
Especially among people whose inclinations include avoiding governments at all costs.
No, they're all shit. The open source ones, if they're really popular and get a lot of eyeballs, are okay.
If yes:
Only use language defined standard libraries and build everything else you need yourself, and even then trust but verify. The third party libraries are always going to be cobbled together.
If no:
Fuck it.
If you don't end your paper with "Further research is needed" a secret cabal of other researchers also applying for grants in your field come into your bedroom at night, drag you off, and tie you to a post in the beam of the LHC.
I've held this suspicion too. Why deliver a game people have been begging for like oversexed whores for years, when you can deliver the game and a tech improvement that'll bust everyone's balls, propelling the former to "technical marvel" and instantly making a market for the latter?
Ah, yeah, democracy, why can't we just install Anonymous coward as dictator, that will solve all our problems(you're a moron).
They did get into bed with nokia, and it really hurt nokia.
You don't actually know what the words meant. This is the problem here. There isn't some "statist/libertarian" divide in our argument, but a "know what words fucking mean/don't" divide.
God dammit, does no one know that "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with progressive liberalism?
Are there that many people that can't go to fucking wikipedia and looking up words. The stupid-ass, libertarian dream world is a "liberal democracy" but you're too caught up in the idea of your own persecution, that you can't imagine a world where "liberal" means anything other than "those people".
Are you slow? Do you have trouble with the simple idea of contextual grammars, upon which our entire language is built? I mean, if I called you a neoliberal idiot, would you assume I'm accusing you of being a leftist? What is wrong with you?