Is repetition really a reliable basis to make laws of science from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenSinner

Guest
Most laws of science are based on the results of a repeated action.

The law of gravity for example:

If I hold a pen up and drop it 999 times, each time the pen drops to the ground. So we ‘prove’ the law of gravity with this due to this high level of repetition.

Is this really a reliable way to prove the law of gravity though? Why wouldn’t the pen stay elevated in the air if we were to try to drop it for the 1,000th time? What basis would we have to conclude that would be impossible for that to happen?
 
Last edited:
We repeat things exactly because we believe we can predict what is going to happen.
If you can predict , assuming perfect conditions, what is going to happen, then you most likely know the process behind it all.
BenSinner said:
impossible
Click to expand...
It is not impossible, but its not ordinary. There are a bunch of things that could make that pen stay elevated in the air, but laws are consistent. Science is done to explain the ordinary, not the special scenarios.
2+2 is always 4 . Nobody gaurantees that it will always be a 4, since somebody might come up with a different numbering system or any other silly way to turn 2+2 not into a 4. But its the ordinary now, so we see 2+2 always as a 4.
That is why sometimes scientists can be wrong, but it does not happen that often.
 
BenSinner said:
based on the results of a repeated action.
Click to expand...
Causality and repeat-ability. Cause effect, given the same circumstances you get the same result.

That is all there is too it.
BenSinner said:
What basis
Click to expand...
Equations and experience. Determinism in exact sciences.
BenSinner said:
Is this really a reliable way
Click to expand...
It is reliable isn’t it? [Scientific method.]
BenSinner said:
Why wouldn’t
Click to expand...
Its been proven beyond a doubt it won’t [given all things being the same.]
 
Last edited:
Because we live in a universe wherein there is order. We do not live in a universe where laws change, etc.
Your coffee cup if left in a cooler environment will always get cooler. We live in an ordered universe and not one of random events.
 
The results of science are always tentative, and all good scientists should know that at least somewhere in the back of their heads. That’s the nature of the scientific method and empirical epistemology.

Laws of science are descriptive, not prescriptive. They do not enforce or set how things go. They merely model and tell how things do in fact go.
 
Rather, observable sameness or consistency is perhaps the best way of recognizing those laws. They help make the physical world understandable, less chaotic.
 
BenSinner said:
Most laws of science are based on the results of a repeated action.

The law of gravity for example:

If I hold a pen up and drop it 999 times, each time the pen drops to the ground. So we ‘prove’ the law of gravity with this due to this high level of repetition.

Is this really a reliable way to prove the law of gravity though? Why wouldn’t the pen stay elevated in the air if we were to try to drop it for the 1,000th time? What basis would we have to conclude that would be impossible for that to happen?
Click to expand...
If it is not as reliable as you would like it to be, I can tell you that we do not have any other means -not to “prove” it, but to show it. Given a mathematical model intended to describe a physical phenomenon, if you want to see how good it is, you will need to do an experiment; that is to say, you will need to repeat the experience a number of times (and you would do it almost as a matter of common sense).

But I am sure that you do not have a real doubt about it: for instance, you are absolutely certain, without proofs of any kind, that whenever you write a comment to the Forum on your computer screen and press certain button, it will get to the forum. You are not afraid that sometimes you will succeed and sometimes you won’t. And this happens in regards to a great number of activities in your daily life.
 
Last edited:
Replication is essential in scientific study to remove unknown variables, including human bias. A thousand times are not needed, but it always takes at least two experiments to confirm that proper methodology was used.
 
As reliable as one can get.
There are instances where you get errors in one lab because the instrument was, for example, damaged in an unnoticeable way or it ‘drifted’ because it hasn’t been recalibrated, you could get the same result by repeating runs over and over again but it would be incorrect in that lab. That’s why they should be repeated elsewhere when possible and in the future on depending on what is being studied and have peers reviewing things.
 
Strictly speaking that’s not true. It’s not a case of determinism or randomness, they are both false. The universe is probabilistic.
 
Not really. Name one law that has ever been violated.
If you mean in the micro world, then that is something different, it is like a whole different world from the macro world. That is more like what you describe.
 
God made and sustains natural laws like the laws of physics. But, God is Sovereign and can intervene and set aside natural laws and do something different. It’s extra-ordinary but it happens. When it happens, it is a miracle.
 
Well yes, of course, I meant in terms of the natural order. Miracles would be an exception, by definition.
 
Last edited:
Yes i was talking about heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
But I am sure that you do not have a real doubt about it: for instance, you are absolutely certain, without proofs of any kind, that whenever you write a comment to the Forum on your computer screen and press certain button, it will get to the forum. You are not afraid that sometimes you will succeed and sometimes you won’t. And this happens in regards to a great number of activities in your daily life.
Click to expand...
Well there are the 502 errors 😁.

On a serious note I agree that it’s the best we have.
 
One time events might also qualify as miracles. Geologists generally believe that the continents of the earth were once all one continent. For example, the understanding is that the sub-continent of India once broke off from Africa and the Himalayan Mountains were formed when the sub-continent encountered Asia. Dramatic land shifts like that might occur via natural forces but it might appear to be a miracle at the time.
 
God can work through the natural order but we don’t tend to call such miracles, usually.
But events that are simply natural events usually are not called miracles, and indeed there is a difference between unexplained phenomena and miracles.
 
I would say yes, coming from a bioscience perspective. Though, my sample sizes were such that stats didn’t really matter 🙂 There are a heck of a lot of bacterial cells in a 1L flask.

Think of it this way: Every Wednesday at +/- noon the town here tests its air raid sirens. Let’s say you only come to town once on a Tuesday and don’t hear them: you might assume that they’re just vestiges of a bygone era. If you come only once on a Wednesday and it’s noon, you might be surprised when the mournful wail of the sirens starts up (expletive’ing Canadians and their invasions, eh?), or you might assume that they are tested every day at noon.

With one experience, there is no way to know (usually) if what you are experiencing is “the way it is,” or if you just happened upon some effect or situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top