Nice clarification of scientific "laws"

This jem was in a newsgroup of Steorn.

Ok, I have seen a lot of BS posted on the forums regarding the misnomer 'Law' in science. Since I am an engineer, and have freshly studied mathematics, physics, and electromagnetics, I'm reasonably qualified to comment on this subject.

First off, a phenomenon is observed. Then more. Eventually a large body of phenomena are observed that are related. (Faraday, for example, took hundreds of measurements of electric and magnetic fields, but lacked the math background and education to compile a single governing theory.) This is called experimental physics.

Next, a theoretical physicisyt (and I don't mean that one is incapable of doing the other, but I submit that anyone who compiles theory or does theory work is a theoretical physicist, even a schoolchild who derives ohm's law), takes that pile of evidence and constructs a set of governing equations. In this case, that was done by James Clerk Maxwell, into Maxwell's equations.

Then others test the limits of those equations, either mathematically, (what happens when we push this parameter farther than before...) or experimentally, (what happens if we crank this dial really high), and the theory either stands or needs revision. Scientific theories explain real observations, nothing more. New and unaccounted for observations require the refinement of existing theories.

The term 'law' is a historical peculiarity from before the 20th century regarding theories that stood up under an extremely wide range of experimental circumstances. However, there is a difference between a scientific law and a mathematical theorem; specifically, that a mathematical theorem can be prooven in the rigorous definition of the word, and a scientific law cannot. That is the reason why the word 'law' has fallen out of favor with modern science, because there is always a measure of uncertainty, even with the most basic laws, take Newton's for example.

Anyone who is prepared to discount the possibility of a phenomenon existing because it violates 'law' X would be wise to do a little reading on the planet Mercury, or a GPS receiver. both sytstems violate newton's laws, but none has been issued so much as a warning.

Mercury's orbital velocity is just fast enough to have relativistic effects be measurable, and when Einstein's theory successfully accounted for those irregularities, it was a big boost to the credibility of relativity. (If you think Einstein's credibility was never questioned, read about the arguments between he and Heisenberg). More recently, the relativistic effects of the GPS system are sufficient that software is needed to correct for the errors in timing, which would prevent the system from working.
Therefore the argument that a device cannot work because it violates a particular law has been given two counterexamples.

Next we have the issue of the lack of closure. Scientists, when performing an experiment, try to isolate, control, or account for all possible variables in the experiment. However, scientific literature is rife with situations where problems arose because all variables weren't accounted for. (psychology is particularly infested with them). For example, with thermodynamics. If one were to take an alkaline battery and hook it up to a motor, and examine it using a classic heat + thermal energy method (such as carnot analysis used in jet engines), there would be no heat input, but the motor would be turning, and would appear to violate that concept of thermodynamics. However, once electrical energy is taken into account, and the current into and the voltage across the motor is measured, thermodynamics can be extended to handle effects that are neither thermal nor dynamic.

-"EEgradstudent"