-
Asked by anon-252499 on 8 Jun 2020.
-
Jennifer Edwards answered on 8 Jun 2020:
Hi! That’s a really difficult question to answer because there are so many! In Physics there are rules about the way things heat up (thermodynamics), rules about gravity and space (relativity) and electric fields to name a few. Chemistry laws are focused around specific parts of Physics, and include reaction laws (how chemicals work together) and gas laws. Biology laws also follow these, but can include laws about neuroscience and geology too such as about pressure around the Earth.
If you meant laws as in what rules do scientists have to follow, then that’s also an interesting conversation and depends on what job you have. There are special lawyers who look at specific parts of science law (such as space and making medicines) who usually have a science education and then transfer into a legal profession.
I hope this helps!
-
-
Nabil Iqbal answered on 8 Jun 2020:
That’s an interesting question — I don’t think there’s really any one “law of science”, because different laws apply depending on what you’re asking about — there’s a “law of gravity” that tells you how fast things fall, there’s are “laws of electromagnetism” that govern things like “why does lightning look the way it does” and “how does my TV work”, and so on and so forth. So there’s no one law of science — instead we have millions of different ones that make science so rich and diverse.
-
Susan Cartwright answered on 8 Jun 2020: last edited 8 Jun 2020 12:23 pm
I think a good candidate for “the law of science” is the motto of the Royal Society: “Nullius in verba” (often translated as “Take nobody’s word for it”, but a more literal translation would be “No value in words”). The key concept is that science, unlike many other fields of human endeavour, is supposed to be built on observations – experimental results in some sciences, observations in other sciences such as astronomy and geology. A scientific theory should produce predictions that we can test using such observations, and if its predictions consistently fail such tests, it should be abandoned and we should look for a better theory. Nullius in verba: it doesn’t matter how important or famous you are, if your theory dies not agree with observation then it is a bad theory and should be replaced.
Of course, things are not as simple as that in reality: some experimental results turn out to be wrong, some theoretical predictions turn out to be mistaken because of faulty assumptions, and nobody wants to abandon a theory that has been successful for many years. But, in the long run, a theory whose predictions fail to match reality will be discarded. And that’s science.
-
John Davies answered on 10 Jun 2020:
I agree with Susan that is to say ‘Don’t take things for granted, always ask questions and test people’s ideas’. Never believe it when someone says something is obvious. It is obvious that the Sun goes around the Earth, except it doesn’t. It is also obvious that stones cannot fall out of the sky, except they do. If you get a result that makes no sense (and this has happened to me) don’t just give it up and throw the data away. Keep asking ‘Is this data right?’ and if you think it is right then keep asking ‘What can it mean?’ How can I explain it? What more data do I need to convince myself and other people that I am on the right track?’ You may find you are wrong and there is something wrong with the data, but you may just have stumbled on a real discovery.
Comments