There are a number of answers to this Q. This answer has been critisized by some philosophers i.e Darwin theory's set laws are too dynamic to be laws which retain a static traits and even some scientists like Smolin proposed laws are changing (cosmological darwinism) which implies scienxe's aim is other.
Other answers are that science's are that science find cause and effect relationships, statistical generalizations and even mechanisms.
What do you think?
Dear Philippos,
Science is not simply uniquely a process of getting better theories but is also about discovering new important facts and some of these factual discovery are much more important that most theoretrical contributions. For example, one of the greatest discovery of Galileo and greatest contribution to science is that he is the first human that pointed a telescope to the surface of the moon and to Jupiter and discover four moons around Jupiter. These two new facts change everything to our conception of the Universe and immediatly blast aways all preceding theories out of the picture and thus open the way to modern astronomy. What it reveals is that the moon which is to the human eye like the other luminaries in the night sky , just bigger and with changing crescent has the surface like the earth sudgesting that planets around the sun are similar to earth. This also sudgest that these fixed stars are far away suns, and the sun a hot physical light emitting sperical places. And the presence of moons around another planets sudgest that planets , like suns have satellites. These theories had old precursors but these had no strong empirical facts to make them prevail until these fundamental factual discoveries of Galileo totally offset the balance.
Closer to us, the discovery of the Cosmological Microwabe background and the factual discovery of the varying red shift of galaxies are fundamental contribution to astronomy which will constraint all further theoretical works in cosmology. So the goal of science or the contribution of science to our knowledge comes from its theories but also comes from its discovering of new factual realities. Theories will changes but these factual contribution will never change. For example the biological theories of evolution will keep changing while the fact of the biological evolution of life on this planet has been definitly established. Even the religious the most opposed to some of this evolutionary theories recognized the fact of the evolution of life on this planet but will posit other explanations for it. This show that factual contributions are more solid, almost impossible to even denied than all of theoretical contributions which are all temporary and never fully established.
Not all the sciences have laws. All the scientific domains involved systematic factual investigations and theories trying to systematically be coherent as possible to these fact. Only physics takes its two fundamental theories, General Relativity and Quantum Physics and the Standard Model of particle physics as corresponding to Laws of Nature. Biology does not posit fidamental laws of biology but accept the notion that Life evolved, not because of a particular controversial theory trying to explain how it evolved, but because of the irrefutable innumerous facts that it evolved: it was not like today in the past and it was only in simple microscopic cellular forms for 3 billion years and became multicellular only in the last half billion years changed drastically during this period. How and Why is theoretically being debated and will continue to be so. The centrality of evolution in understanding biology is common to most domain of science since all these domains evolved. The planets gradually formed. The stars and galaxies grafdually formed. The human society gradually formed. But when we come to fundamental physics: we do not talk about these laws as being gradually formed but as Original State of the Cosmos even pre-existing the cosmos so when the concept of Laws of Nature is totally contrary to evolutionary spirits of all the other sciences. The laws in human societies did not pre-exist these societies but gradually formed during the formation of these societies. So the concept of pre-existing laws of physics is platonic and theological in the sense it is similar to the creation of the world conceptually by a God or for NO REASON and then the Universe began and followed these law ever after. This is contrary to the principle of evoulion that the order of phenomenal domain do not pre-exist the domain but co-evolved with it. So physics will have to change its platonic pre-existing laws of physics mindset and adop of constant co-creation of laws mindset. Some physicists made efforts in this direction but nothing yet strong enough to shake the platonic mindset of the mainstream physicist community. It is our friend Galileo which pionnered this mainstream platonic mindset when he considered that mathematical physicists like him were just expressing the law of Nature written by God in the language of mathematics. Feel so good to be able to read the mind of God and to speak the language of God that so far theoretical physicists prefer to elevate mathematics (and themself) to an uncreated realm of God. Coming back to earth is too repulsive. Much better to stay in unchanging unpoluted unchanging idealities. So one need to desacralise mathematics and debunked the so-called ''unreasonable effectivelness of mathematics in the physical sciences'' and then attribute the creation of the so-called ''Laws of Nature'', NOT TO NATURE, NOT TO GOD but simply say it is the humble clumsy theoretical groping of a bunch of limited clueless humans called physicists. Then having admitted this then realise what is awfully wrong with platonic pre-existing and searching for co-creation possible scenarios.
Regards,
- Louis
Dear Phillippos,
It is an important aim of science to theorize about Nature or What exists but it is not the only aim of science. Another aim of science is to discover new important facts about reality and its past and history. My answer is not a yes since it is not only about law and it is not no since finfing laws is part of what is important.
Regards,
- Louis
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching