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

[BlackFriar]

Science gives us models.
For the reasons you stated it may one day need to be revised.
Given they have worked 100% to date I wouldn’t turn off auto-pilot on everything just yet.

Life is pragmatic.
That’s a perfectly acceptable way to live.
Don’t overthink these things,

 

[STT]

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?

It means that it is reliable when it is repeatable.

 

[nodelink]

History is not repeatable but we can know it. Historical events happened only once.

 

[IWantGod]

Science does not give us absolute certainty, just a high probability of something being true.

Of course, you could wake up tomorrow get out of your bed and fall in to a black endless void never to be seen again. But experience suggests that to be highly unlikely.

 

[TechieGuy]

What you are calling ‘laws of science’ is nothing more than a description of the observed repeated behavior. If the behavior changed, then those ‘laws of science’ would have to be revisited and modified to account for the new observed behavior.