Scientific Laws: Immutable Or Evolving?

Scientific laws are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. They are based on repeated experiments or observations. The question of whether these laws can be changed has been a topic of debate and discussion. Some argue that the fundamental laws of the universe remain constant and do not change, while our understanding and interpretation of them evolve as we make new discoveries and gain new insights. This view suggests that the consistency of scientific laws arises from a lack of anything to change them rather than a force preserving them. On the other hand, some argue that scientific laws are human descriptions of how the world behaves and are subject to change as our understanding of the underlying reality improves. This perspective acknowledges the possibility that our current laws may be proven wrong or require refinement as new evidence or phenomena are encountered. The discussion often revolves around the nature of scientific laws, the role of observation and experimentation, and the potential for alternate universes with different laws.

Scientific laws are human descriptions of how the world behaves

Scientific laws are human descriptions of how the world and the universe behave. They are based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and have become universally accepted within the scientific community. The laws describe or predict a range of natural phenomena and are developed from data and mathematics. They are discovered rather than invented and are considered true within their regime of validity.

Scientific laws are not "real" in the sense that they do not exist independently of humanity. They are a way for humans to understand and make sense of the world and the universe. The consistency of scientific laws is due to the lack of anything to change them, rather than the presence of something preserving them.

The laws of science are often associated with the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, and biology. However, the social sciences also contain laws, such as Zipf's law, which is based on mathematical statistics. In the natural sciences, impossibility assertions are widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable, rather than considered proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This strong acceptance is based on extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with underlying theories that successfully make predictions.

Scientific laws are subject to change as human understanding of the world evolves. While the fundamental behaviours in the universe remain the same, our understanding of them can change, and our descriptions of them (i.e. scientific laws) can be updated and improved. For example, if a phenomenon deviates from its description according to a scientific law, it is a sign that our understanding or description of that phenomenon was incorrect, and the law may need to be modified.

The persistence of scientific laws can also be attributed to the fact that they have been chosen because they have persisted. Each day that a scientific law continues to hold true is a testament to its validity. However, if a law stops working, scientists will seek to understand why and will no longer consider it a law.

Scientific laws are based on repeated experiments or observations

The scientific method involves formulating hypotheses and postulates, which are then validated through experimentation and observation. Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates in that they have been verified to a higher degree. Scientific laws are typically formed after repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years, and they become universally accepted within the scientific community. For example, the First Law of Motion, formulated by Isaac Newton, states that an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

Scientific laws are foundational principles that emerge from repeated observations and testing, and they embody predictable patterns in the natural world. They describe consistent behaviors in nature, such as the law of gravity, which states that objects with mass attract each other. This law has been confirmed through countless experiments and observations. While scientific laws provide reliable descriptions of natural phenomena, they do not explain the underlying mechanics or reasons for these behaviors. That is the role of scientific theories, which provide broader and more detailed explanations of the observed outcomes.

Scientific laws are constantly being tested experimentally to increasing degrees of precision, as one of the main goals of science is to validate and refine our understanding of the natural world. While well-established laws have not been observed to be violated, they can be invalidated or proven to have limitations through repeatable experimental evidence. In such cases, new formulations are created to explain the discrepancies, building upon the original laws rather than overthrowing them. For example, the conservation of mass was initially understood as a fundamental principle until relativity and nuclear physics experiments showed that mass could be transformed into energy and vice versa.

The persistence of scientific laws can be attributed to their consistency over time and space. However, it is important to recognize that scientific laws are human descriptions of how the world behaves and are subject to change as our understanding evolves. The stability of the laws in our universe may also be a factor in the development of intelligent life forms capable of making scientific observations.

Scientific laws are discovered, not invented

Scientific laws are not "real" in the sense that they do not exist outside of humanity. They are discovered through the scientific method and are based on empirical evidence. These laws are typically expressed in the form of mathematical equations, such as Einstein's Special Relativity, which explains the relationship between space and time for objects moving at a consistent speed, or E = mc², which represents the relationship between energy and mass.

The stability of scientific laws can be attributed to the lack of anything to change them, rather than the presence of preserving factors. Each fundamental entity in the universe, such as electrons, quarks, and gravity, behaves in a certain way, and the collective effect of these behaviours results in the phenomena described by scientific laws. While it is theoretically possible for laws to be invalidated or proven wrong through repeatable experimental evidence, in practice, this is challenging due to the vast number of fundamental entities that would need to change their behaviour.

However, it is important to note that scientific laws are not static and unchanging. They can be further developed and refined through new theories, experiments, and observations. For instance, well-established laws have been invalidated in some special cases, leading to the creation of new formulations that build upon the original laws while accounting for previously unconsidered conditions. This process of improving and refining scientific laws is an ongoing endeavour in the pursuit of more accurate and precise understanding.

In conclusion, scientific laws are discovered through human observation and interpretation of the natural world, rather than invented or created from scratch. They are based on empirical evidence and mathematical equations, and while they may be refined or built upon, their fundamental principles remain stable due to the consistent behaviours of the innumerable fundamental entities that make up the universe.

Scientific laws are refined through the scientific method

The scientific method involves generating a hypothesis, testing it, finding empirical evidence, and drawing conclusions. These conclusions are then used to develop scientific laws or theories. The process of refining scientific laws through the scientific method is iterative and ongoing, as new evidence may emerge that disproves or refutes existing laws or theories. In such cases, scientists must develop new hypotheses that better describe how nature works.

Scientific laws are human descriptions of how the world behaves and are based on repeated experiments or observations. They are developed from data and can be further refined through mathematics. Laws are not set in stone and can change over time as new evidence or theories emerge. For example, certain accepted truths of Newtonian physics were partially disproven by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

The development of scientific laws is influenced by cultural and historical factors. For instance, the idea of scientific laws in Roman times was shaped by the pivotal role of codified law and forensic argument in Roman life and culture. The development of scientific laws in the 17th century was influenced by religious views, with natural philosophers such as Isaac Newton holding that God had instituted absolute, universal, and immutable physical laws.

The distinction between scientific laws and theories is important. Laws are narrower in scope and do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena, while theories are more expansive and focus on the "how" and "why" of natural phenomena. Theories provide a definitive explanation of some aspect of the natural world and are supported by empirical evidence. Laws, on the other hand, are distillations of the results of repeated observations and are limited in their applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed.

Scientific laws are distinct from natural laws in a political-legal sense

On the other hand, the concept of natural law in the political-legal sense, conceived as universal, was elaborated by scholars such as Grotius, Spinoza, and Hobbes. This concept of natural law is a type of moral theory and a type of legal theory. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the world. While natural law legal theory holds that the authority of legal standards derives, at least in part, from the moral merit of those standards.

The distinction between natural law in the political-legal sense and the law of nature or physical law in the scientific sense is a modern one, with both concepts derived from the Greek word "physis", meaning nature. Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of the laws of nature: the Regularity Theory and the Necessitarian Theory. The Regularity Theory states that laws of nature are descriptions of uniformities or regularities in the world, while the Necessitarian Theory posits that they are the "principles" governing natural phenomena.

Scientific laws are persistent because there is no way to change them. Each fundamental entity in the universe behaves in a certain way, and the collective effect of these behaviors is what we describe in our scientific laws. If these fundamental entities changed their behavior, the laws would also change. However, a stable universe with consistent laws is necessary for the development of intelligent life capable of making scientific observations.

While scientific laws are consistent over time and space, this consistency is simply a result of observation rather than any underlying reason. They are not "real" in the sense that they do not exist outside of humanity.

Frequently asked questions