Talk:Scientific law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filll's attempt to find nonphysical scientific laws[edit]

What other nonphysical scientific laws are there? here are some sites to look at:

Some sort of universal mortality law. Not clear from abstract

comment from this article it would appear that the Universal Growth Law is now accepted. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

philosophy of science discussion of natural law/scientific law[edit]

Confusion about laws and thoeries[edit]

The second paragraph seems to be thoroughly confused about what the relationship between a law and a theory is. Laws are empirical facts (observations) and are always true to the error of measurement. Theories are models that try to explain these observations. So theories never become laws becouse they are more general (and not becouse they cannot be proven, which is true but not very relevant here).

Incidently the term law is usually applied when there someone finds a relationship which is yet unexplained by any theory or model. They are (at the time of their naming) sets of puzzles remaining to be solved.

86.101.162.160 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you are incorrect, according to my reading on this issue at the National Academy of Sciences. A law is not an observation. Sorry.--Filll
Ah! Wrong for 40 years? Could you reference this reading, where the NAS claims a law cannot be an observation? Tx. Geologist (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A law is an observation in nature, like for example the sun rising every day. It's not meant to be a model like a theory is. Theories on the other hand describe laws -- eg why does the sun rise every day? Any explanation for this question, the law or observation that the sun rises, is a theory. Of course you distinguish between hypothesis and theory but you get what I'm saying. This is a HUGE misconception among people. I don't know how many people I've met both online and in real life who had no idea what the difference between a law and a theory was. And this wikipedia article isn't helping. Theories do not turn into laws, ever. I might fix this page at a latter date. 157.182.185.102 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [1veedo][reply]
Fixed to some degree, "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it." I worded a law as "describing an observation in nature" when in reality a law actually -IS- (for the most part, though not entirely) an observation in nature where the theory is a model to explain the observation/law. I think grammatically the two wordings make equal sense but it might be beneficial to point out the latter as well. 157.182.185.102 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--- Agreed. I was wondering about the theory page as well; there seems to be no explanation about the relationship between laws and theories there either. Maybe you could fix that page as well??? The current subsection there about scientific laws isn't wrong or anything but there should be a mention of how theories tend to explain laws while laws are more or less just general observations in science. It really should be part of the main article as well because the purpose of a theory is to explain these sorts of observations in nature, and generally speaking in most sciences you have a law and then a theory explaining this law (eg evolution, gravity, etc). Thanks.
It's been 4 years and this is still very confusing. Can I suggest we make a heading called "Laws vs theories" to explictly clear it up? I had to come to the talk page for that. I think it's a very central point to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepdeedoo (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line removed from text[edit]

Generally, scientific laws are taken to be proven to a degree somewhat beyond a scientific theory that is still under investigation.

I would agree with this. Does it need a source?--Filll 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What!? Chemical thermodyamics is filled with laws abstracted from observations, accurate to varying degrees. Many are not even correct, let alone verified at the moment (never 'proven' true). The only scientific theories not 'still under investigation' are those proven false.
Look, 'fact' is not really within the diction of science (though it is sometimes attributed to objective statements about specimens, which we all immediately recognize as subjective), 'observation' takes its place; and 'truth' differs greatly from the absolute truth of philosophers. A statement scientists accept as true today, they may accept as false tomorrow. When a scientist starts to make very similar observations or see almost the same relation among processes, he can call it a law and append his name to it. After dozens of laws within one domain of science collect, a theory will appear that deduces them all from very few, acceptable axioms. References to these laws usually then disappear from the literature.
All scientific theories are still under investigation, and no (provisional) scientific law is, or can be, proven in the philosophical sense. We can prove a theory false, when (many of) its prediction are observed to be false (not one). (Who doesn't make mistakes?) One can 'prove' a statement, deduced from a currently accepted theory, true by deduction from its axioms. This truth can quickly become false. No law (abstracted from observed specimens) can possibly be 'taken to be proven (true)', in either the philosophical sense (which positivists don't use here) or the scientific sense (which requires the sturdy framework of a theory, which is evaluated for scientific truth as a whole).
Observations are objective, 'facts' are subjective, and truths are deduced. Nothing is proven true that can't be proven false tomorrow. Geologist (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory". (Right?)[edit]

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory". I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: [1] -Alex.rosenheim 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only laws i know in biology are Mendel's and Hardy Weinberg Law. I have never heard evolution described as a law. David D. (Talk) 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point. It isn't commonly discussed as a "law", even though it may satisfy the accepted scientific meaning of the term "Law". (There is very little difference in the definition...which leaves a subjective choice). I am suggesting/supporting Mr. Thompson's suggestion that we can change the debate by changing the vocabulary of the debate. But it doesn't work unless it is still accurate. I say that "Law" is just as accurate as "Theory" in the case of Evolution. But I am posing it in the discussion section not the article since I know that this would raise questions. It would be appropriate, since it can be referenced with a published work...but I wanted to vet it first. -Alex.rosenheim 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the scientific community does not use the term what would be the point of wikipedia? We should not be pushing the agenda, i.e. evolution should be a law. Likewise little weight should be given to a columnist in Wired, although the points are interesting, they are almost irrelevant to the debate. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question seems apropos to 'scientific law' in that the Wikipedia has been clearly designated as being descriptive, not prescriptive. This article discusses only one use of 'scientific law', though there are at least half a dozen others. The article is in desperate need of clarification, especially their first line. (This is always the case with inital drafts.) Does it mean 'A scientific law is an empirical relationship'? Relations have 'domains', and perhaps the use of this term and the fact that laws need only make approximate predictions, would help. This article also needs to cooperate with all others on essentially the same subject. (Search for 'scientific laws' to see a partial list.)
However 'evolution' catches my own use of this term: paleontologists have observed changes in species, both by evolution & by revolution; and this statement (which is usually true) illustrates a law. Darwin's 'explanation' of it illustrates a theory. Laws (found through induction) appear to precede & motivate theories, for theories 'explain' laws. Those laws that are approximate are found to be represented by a theorem with an extra variable or two. This illustrates my current use of 'law', but the use changes with one's profession and one's age. :-)
The use of 'law' was much more common in the past. These laws disappeared as theories enveloped them. Thus the 'Law of Robin' and 'Law of Moutier' were little referenced after being 'explained' by Gibbs's theory of chemical thermodynamics. This may explain why one doesn't encounter laws in biology much today. Plenty remain in thermodynamics; and, although one doesn't refer to common observations as laws such in geology, the observation that 'chains of volcanic islands are often arcs' shows there are plenty of unexplained laws in this science. (See Walter Bucher's 'Deformation of the Earth's Crust'.)
Note that two 'laws' invoving heat & work can be combined to found the 'theory of classical thermodynamics'; so, distinguishing a law as offering descriptions and theories as offering explanations has problems. I used 'scientific explanation' above because all other scientists do. I've had great problems, however, defining 'explanation' objectively. Theories are tested by testing their predictions; so distinguishing a law from a theorem by 'explanation' doesn't seem accurate. Both laws and theorems make predictions, though predictions made by laws seem a bit lax. There appear to be two actual differences between a law and a theorem: (1) a law can fail now & then, and (2) a law is a predictive statement that stands by itself: it is not a sentence in a scientific theory.
These are personal opinions and don't describe a consensus. Geologist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. It would help to see if the NAS describes it in any of their publications to get their take on it. Truth and proof only are applicable in logic and mathematics, as far as I know, and do not appear really in science (except when doing something that involves math or logic, like trying to decide "does this prediction of this theory agree with the observation or not, within some tolerance etc").--Filll (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should be very surprised if the NAS ever prescribes a philosophy of science, because every scientist appears to have his or her own. 'Truth' has many meanings in science, though most scientists (I'm told) are positivists, as I am. To us, 'truth' is applicable only to a theory, where it means freedom from contradiction. This is Tarski's definition of truth, and it is the same in logic & mathematics. Truth as 'freedom from contradiction' is consistent with scientific methodology, which we all agree upon. However, the 'realists' are seeking absolute, philosophical truth through science - something most of use consider impossible. 'Realism', in the positivist opinion, confuses 'subjective' with 'objective', 'science with 'religion'. All scientists, however, share a common methodology. Methodology has a consensus, and this defines science; but philosophies differ greatly.
A 'Fact' differs from 'truth' in that it is completely objective: that crystals of quartz and feldspar touch one another in a granite all agree upon. Every current theory is 'true', which is why these are still viable. However, many may be false tomorrow. When a speaker once referred to the 'theory of plate tectonics', a new, young professor interrupted & said 'plate tectonics is a fact'. To my pleasure, most of the students' jaws dropped. Geologist (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Law is a statment about how thigs work in nature that seem to be of the I.E. law gravity

Redirect/merge with Laws of science[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be merged or redirected because it isn't really any different information -Tsinoyman (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the scientific law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.64.252 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both articles are kinda messes but this one probably has the best title while LoS has better content. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. The two articles clearly have different intents. One is a list, the other is not. --76.204.21.86 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Disagree. It seems that the purpose of this article is to give a rather detailed explanation on what constitutes a scientific law, while the other article in question gives out an extenstive list on various laws of science listed off by branch. I think we need to call in fellow editors who are experts in this field to give their input on how to improve this article. RiseRobotRise (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Disagree: By analogy with Physical law, Scientific law should be (and was probably intended to be) a philosophical article about scientific law, not a discussion of the laws. It would be hard to serve both needs in a single article. I notice that WikiProject Philosophy has not been notified. I will notify them; please give them at least a week to respond before doing anything. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment: Judging by previous discussion threads, most people coming to this page are wondering what the difference between scientific law and theory is. The discussions have been futile because no one has been providing any references. I have added some. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict) 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)[reply]
That's a good solution. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: Without comment on the quality of either article as they stand, if there is to be a list of scientific laws, it should be at the title List of scientific laws, and that article (being a list article) should not have substantial content of its own in it. However, there is need for an article with substantial content on what a scientific law is, which is most suited for this title (Scientific law). It seems to me a summary-style article covering every scientific law, as has been proposed for the article currently at Laws of science, would quickly get unwieldy and is better served as a list, linked from and linking to the article on what a scientific law is. (All that said, if there is substantial content at Laws of science about what scientific laws are, it would best be moved here to Scientific law before that article gets turned into a List of scientific laws). --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarify topic, merge with Physical law?[edit]

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)[reply]

Scientific principle[edit]

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)[reply]

Are all scientific laws expressible by mathematics?[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge with physical law?[edit]

Merge with physical law?Tttrung (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree Physical law gives a nuance to laws of the universe. A scientific law implies rigorous experimental testing with replicatable results. There are too many areas where labratory testing is not possible. The basis of science is that its laws are only laws until there is evidence that it is not true. Physical laws tend to be learned with experience, such as do not touch hot stoves, is not something we want every child to experience via third degree burns. The explanation may be incorrect (i.e. if Mom says not to touch, she means it and it can hurt to disobey). People assume the physical law applies, even if their understanding of the basis of the law is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBlew (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree they're the same topic. GliderMaven (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to physical law. I can't find any source that makes a distinction between these terms. This proposal doesn't say which way the merger should go, but based on Google Books searches ("Scientific law" 94,000 results vs "Physical law" 191,000) and Google Scholar ("Scientific law" 16,400 vs "Physical law" 38,500), physical law appears to be the right choice per WP:COMMONNAME. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think the merged article should be at Scientific law rather than Physical law though, since they're not exactly the same topic and the first term is more general: "physical law" implies a restriction to the physical sciences, as mentioned in the article. (In other words, COMMONNAME wouldn't apply. That said, that isn't a reason to keep the articles separate entirely, since one is a subset of the other.) Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong agree they are the same subject. Huff slush7264 Chat With Me 11:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, merge. Better to "scientific law", but I'm ok with merging to "physical law" too. UglyGoat (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree. Yes, of course they refer to the same thing (though "physical law" is a narrower concept), and they should absolutely be merged. The merge should be to "scientific law". I don't understand why anyone can be in doubt: "physical law" refers to laws within the science of physics; "scientific law" refers to any law of science in any branch of science. So the article should be about the broader idea, within which is the narrower one.Ajrocke (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor "Sunrise" has now done us a a great service by doing the merge with "Physical Law" that was the strong majority opinion about what should be done. Nonetheless, the resulting edited and merged article is still rough in several places, often a little unclear, and occasionally repetitive. In the near future I propose to offer a few new edits to the newly merged article. I will do this in pieces, so that those who may disagree with one or more of my suggestions may comment on them individually, or even revert if they consider it necessary, rather than reviewing collectively all edits at once.Ajrocke (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split out the "Laws of physics" section into its own article![edit]

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)[reply]

Scientific Laws Are Expressed Mathematically[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed as not always true. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laws are not facts?[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_law&oldid=1212699090"