Would that be where you said: “I do believe that hypothesis-theory-law is an hierarchical chain depending on scientific evidence.”? As stated, this hierarchy you support directly contracdicts the hierarchy as quoted by Dr.s Serway and Beichner. I suppose you have a doctorate in physics and are the other of one of the most popular college level physics texts ever… or are you disagreeing just to be contrary?
I’m not aware of anything in your quotes that contradicts anything I stated, so I am not disagreeing.
Or perhaps you are referring to this: “A theory is what you said PLUS the fact that it has obtained SOME measure of scientific validity, but has not yet satisfied the criteria for scientific certainly. A Law is a theory that has satisfied the criteria for scientific certainty.” Which is also incorrect as you don’t seem to understand that a law or laws are the basis for a theory and not the other way around. A theory is an expression of a law or laws, which is/are in term expressed as math.
The problem with your response here is that it doesn’t address my statement. I was talking about the relationship between hypothesis & theory, not about law & theory. I’ve stated a couple of times already that theories are based on laws, so I don’t know why you feel your statement refutes mine.
Since you seem to think that two authoritative sources in the world of physics must be wrong about what a theory and law are, let me highlight a passage from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:
Nothing here contradicts what I stated either, unless you are misunderstanding me.
Please note from this that the entire scientific world defines these terms such that the correct hierarchy is hypothesis → law(s) → theory
I’ll admit I learned the hypothesis-theory-law hierarchy from my teachers 20 years ago. The hierarchy may have changed, or become more dogmatized in one direction, but I’ll stick to what I learned, and I don’t see it theoretically (no pun intended) contradicting anything you’ve quoted. However, I will readily admit that the contradiction becomes poignant and more apparent when theories that have not been sufficiently proven are considered to have the scientific certaintly of laws, especially in areas that may be of interest in the theological sphere.
More likely, though, it is simply that the hierarchy of hypothesis-theory-law has a different basis than the hierarchy of hypothesis-law-theory. The hypothesis - theory - law hierarchy is premised on the principle of evidence and scientific certainty. Those who adhere to that hierarchy will always look at it in those terms. On the other hand, the hypothesis-law-theory hierarchy is premised on a more philosophical principle - that is, of the manner and extent of epistemological support that one level has for the next.
We’ll add in: “I do think that the only worthy point in support of your position is the idea that both law and theory can, through available evidence, be proven wrong. Nevertheless, there is a difference between law and theory in this regard. When a theory is proven wrong, the theory is either discarded or revised. In distinction, when a LAW is proven wrong, the LAW remains intact - it is merely that a new law for the new and/or different circumstances that have been discovered is added as a corollary.”
That entire statement is incorrect except for the fact that changes in a theory mean having to postulate a whole new theory. This is because in order for a theory to be wrong there must be a FUNDAMENTAL flaw with it, or that so many of the laws it is based on are proven wrong. The laws which a theory is based on can change without actually having a theory change at all. In fact, many of the theories predating special relativity are still valid, even though the newtonian laws of motion have been supplanted by totally new laws which are more inclusive.
I’m not aware of ANY Law in science that has been “proven wrong.” Can give me an example, because your Newtonian example is a poor one. Your example does not prove your point, but rather mine. As stated, scientific laws will ALWAYS remain intact. They do not become “wrong.” It is simply that new circumstances or “proofs” arise that require an EXTENSION of the law, so to speak. The old law does not become discarded for the circumstances where that law is valid. What occurs is that a new law is made that takes into account those special new circumstances (which normally entails new equations and such).
Thus, your statement that “a theory remains intact even if the laws upon which it is based is wrong” is false, because its premise - that a Law can be proven wrong - is false. As I stated, scientific laws do not go wrong. They are simply added to with corollaries or become part of a bigger picture. The ONLY way for a theory to remain intact is if nothing has been found to contradict it
YET, NOT that it remains intact despite the laws upon which the theory works having been found to be wrong.
I should also add that your assertion that special relativity can’t be proven is patently false. Every nuclear bomb that has ever gone off is an experiment in special relativity. Also, you should look up solar eclipses and their relation to special relativity and you can see how the whole hypothesis was proven true in the first place.
No. I never stated that the theory of special relativity can’t be proven. I stated that it is rather difficult to prove. Big difference. OF COURSE there have been experiments or events that demonstrate the validity of many facets of the theory. But it simply hasn’t been tested under ALL possible conditions that scientiests have conceived - that is why it remains a theory and has not become a law.
Blessings
