Talk:Scientific law

message: What other nonphysical scientific laws are there? here are some sites to look at:
*http://www.actahort.org/books/402/402_61.htm
*http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=68804
*RECAPITULATION THEORY OR BIO- GENETIC LAW IN EMBRYOLOGY  (discarded now I presume)
*http://www.sph.umich.edu/biostat/programs/Zhaoabs.html says HWE is a scientific law
*http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2005/Projects/S0407.pdf something about hayflick limit (sp?) and biological law about divisions of cells?
*http://www.math.wvu.edu/~rmayes/4.1%20Exponential%20Functions.pdf refers to a "biological law" of population growth. This is just exponential growth I think. Sort of baby predator-prey analysis, Malthusian analysis etc.
*http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2005/hole.asp some suggestion of biological law of biodiversity 
*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVG-4CVR2C8-4&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F2004&_alid=509224972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5534&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd27dbacd728523a0a4ac120deac43b0 
Some sort of universal mortality law. Not clear from abstract
*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6756/full/401865a0.html a nature paper discussing a biological law of diversity 
::comment from this article it would appear that the Universal Growth Law is now accepted. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I want to get a short list of "biological laws" so that we do not imply that scientific laws are only physical laws or chemical laws (which are basically physical laws at their roots, anyway).--Filll 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment Some of the above are not authoritative review articles on 'scientific law', but just individuals' opinions. Care for some geological examples? Here are 46 tectonic laws: Bucher, W.H, 1933. The deformation of the Earth's crust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Here is a typical example of a scaling law from geology:-- Geologist (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filll's attempt to find nonphysical scientific laws

message: I think this should be merged or redirected because it isn't really any different information -Tsinoyman (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree: What exactly is so "different about the intents"? They are the same topic. The lead in this article is similar/better than my recent first attempts to rewrite Laws of science, which is no longer "just a list" (or at least it will not be, I plan to write that article in list and prose summary style). Why does there necessarily have to be a "list article" and a "one-paragraph article (with no additional sections)"?? What sections would be added to this article?? There is simply zero reason for this article - it should be merged. I have proposed this at Merge Laws of science and Scientific law and added merge banners. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 09:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree: the above comments say it all... they are the same concept, and each is good in their own ways. The content of this article seperated from the laws of science article renders it pointless, transferring this content to that article would certianly be an improvement... Maschen (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the two articles do not seem distinct enough to keep separate, above comments articulate that point well.  It seems that any philosophical commentary regarding scientific law (which seems very minor to my eyes) could easily reside within the same article.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say that the philosophical commentary seems minor, is that based on a reading of the references in Scientific law? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Comment: On second thought it may be better to leave the philosophy/science split of laws into two articles. This article is currently not really philosophical at all, so presumably people will rewrite and expand to make it so. On the other hand I don't see why its so hard/inadvisable to include a philosophical discussion of scientific laws in a couple of leading sections of laws of science though. That would serve as a nice introduction, but then the problem of section-length occurs... I'll not do anything either... Maschen (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a summary discussion of the philosophy could go into laws of science, but I suspect that if someone starts working seriously on that article, it will get quite long. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Good point and thanks for adding the references. It seems there is a hint of philosophy in laws of science already (due to F=q(E+v^B)'s recent rewrite). There must be people out there who can write pages on the philosophy of scientific laws so it makes sense to keep this article for that... I don't have many sources of my own, but added something for further reading: Penrose's Road to reality, a book on philosophy and mathematical physics. Maschen (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to add - should we remove the merge banners? I'm not in favour to merge anymore... Maschen (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that they should be left for a week or so to allow other people to weigh in. We only just notified two wikiprojects. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above points are fair enough - the consensus is to not merge, so I decline also. What can be done is for this article, add a note at the top saying: "this article discusses the philosophy of scientific laws, for the scientific and mathematical details see laws of science" (or words to that effect). Also add a similar note to the laws of science article. That way the philosophy/science split is immediate for everyone. I'll at least do that now, since they will be independent of the merge banners. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 17:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good solution. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

text: It would not become unwieldly, the summary style is there and set, all that's needed is expansion. Why do these scientific laws have to be listed? Some background and how they interrelate with other laws will not hurt. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 18:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no more involvement and no (clear) consensus to merge, so I will remove the tags - they have been there almost a month already... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect/merge with [[Laws of science]] 

message: It has been suggested that this article be merged with Physical law (see Talk:Physical_law#Merge_from_Scientific_law). Some objected arguing this article may be about laws of sciences in general (including social sciences). It is not clear whether this article's precise topic is laws of natural sciences or of sciences in general. See Talk:Physical_law#Terminological_mess_.28physical.2Fscientific_laws.29. --Chealer (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify topic, merge with [[Physical law]]? 

message: Why would scientific principle redirect here? Most evolutionary biologists, for example, refer to Darwin's three part syllogism of natural selection (heritability, variation, differential fitness) as general principles, but would not make the claim that it is a scientific law. Principle and law are not the same, but I realize this is opening up a philosophical kettle of worms.Thompsma (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific principle 

message: That's what I've been told, and if the answer is yes, I would like it to be in this article. Thanks. 
I will show how the answer cannot be Yes. For example, there are a group of rules that define what statement about the world is Science, or (not) ”Faith.”
 One rule from this group is that a scientific claim must be replicable by other scientists. Say you measure the rate that a 10 pound weight falls from a 1000 foot tower. In your write-up of the experiment and its results, you specify that the falling weight’s rate of falling is measured every 10 feet. You find that the weight’s rate of fall accelerates (you did not expect this) as it falls; it quickly reaches the rate of 32 feet/second, but the rate (distance/time) doubles in the next second!—-your results are, then, that objects, in time increments of one second, fall at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. Under the (initial) conditions you carefully described. That is Ll you can say for now. The results include some math but maybe something about how you got your results is unique to your experimental setup (10 pound weight; 1000 foot high tower). You cannot yet be certain of the result (32’/sec/sec). So other scientists, from other (anywhere) places on earth must replicate your experiment using your method; and eventually other conditions. Say they doz, and get the same results after hundreds of separate trials. Only after this replication can you call your results a scientific law.
 This scientific experiment was carefully explained precisely so other scientists could test it out. That is not math. Even with math in the experiment, it still uses careful language so others can easily replicate it and if ”true” enter your result into the Scientific Canon, and you can get your Nobel prize for discovering the rate and acceleration of the rate of a falling object on earth under the influence of gravity (others and/or you must try many other weights and distances of falling until your result is a “universal constant”). Another indicator of true science is also operating here: that others get the same result under replication means the results are ”real”. 
Imagine you see blue rabbits before it rains, every time. No one else except your suggestive, not too bright friend, sees these rabbits. Thousands look but no one else sees these blue rabbits before rain.
 Then you say only ”true believers” can see the rabbits. And you instantly insure the blue rabbit observation is not going to be part if the canon like your other experimental results. 
Bingo! Your finding here is considered to be based on faith, not science. It is not replicable, or even ”disprovable” by others (this part us tricky) because maybe you really do see blue rabbits—we cannot read your mind. Therein lies another rule indicating a scientific finding, or not--it must be falsifiable or disprovable. 
You found, then, that scientific statements must be replicable and capable oF being falsified. Not bad and not mathematics either. You’re conclusions were first discovered by a philosopher of science in the mid 20th century. You’re a true Renaissance man! Q.E.D.
findings.YBeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all scientific laws expressible by mathematics? 

message: Merge with physical law?Tttrung (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *You'd think that "Scientific law" would be more general, but I don't see them treated any differently in the sources. That said,  both terms are used frequently, so I'm ok with merging to "Scientific law". RockMagnetist(talk) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[physical law]]? 

message: Currently, the "Laws of biology" is a single sentence. The "Laws of physics" unfairly dominates the article. Y'all know that there is more to science, than just physics, right? Not to bring up #metoo but seriously: in physics, 49 out of 50 graduate students are male. In biology, 35 out of 50 are female. Not to bring up #blm, but pretty much exactly zero physics students and professors are American blacks (save one, Jim Gates. One. Exactly one.). I think the others hang out in social science and anthropology departments. Not to bring up #capitalism, but physics is the prototypical "hard science" and economics has a severe chip on its shoulder, it has physics-envy to the extent that it has corrupted economics to it's very deepest core, resulting in global capitalistic chaos and populist politicians of the very worst sort. But here we are in Wikipedia, reinforcing the ugliest, nastiest and worst possible stereotypes of science that we can possibly find. Surely we can do better! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split out the "Laws of physics" section into its own article! 

message: I tweaked the opening sentence by adding 'mathematically' at its end... Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena that can be expressed mathematically. 2601:589:4800:9090:F5DA:4CF1:57ED:4CF5 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as not always true. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Laws Are Expressed Mathematically 

message: "Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts. [4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous, an overstatement, or an equivocation.[5] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy, but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes."
These sentences annihilate the layman's concept of a scientific law. If laws aren't factual, then what are they, exactly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.164.162 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article carefully, which does a good job of explaining the nature of scientific laws.  Scientific laws are "simply empirical conclusions", hence they are not "facts" (i.e., ontologically true statements).  If you are right that this annihilates the layman's concept of a scientific law, then laymen need to learn what scientific laws really are.  There are essentially ZERO scientists, historians of science, or philosophers of science who would agree that "laws are facts". Ajrocke (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws are not facts?