🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1 May 2004 17:48:31 -0700, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:

>> >do scientific laws pass the scientific method?
>> 
>> No. They are observations. Only theories are subject
>> to the scientific
>> method.
>> 
>>  e.g. The intensity of light observed from a source of
>> constant
>> intrinsic luminosity falls off as the square of the
>> distance from the
>> object.
>> 
>> That's not a theory. It isn't somebody's idea or
>> proposal. 
>> It's just a fact. Light follows this inverse square
>> law every time.
>> 
>> ## You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge!
	
>That's a false dichotomy.  Noone "observes" the inverse square 
>law.  

Any measurement, by eye or with instrumentation, is an observation.

>  The "observation" is that an object with light intensity L at 
>distance d has an intensity L/4 at distance 2d and even 
>this "observation" is based on theories on the workings of the 
>instruments used to measure the light. 

Which are cross-checked a dozen different ways.

> The inverse square law is an 
>extrapolation of these "observations"  to all light sources and all 
>distances. 

And will remain a scientific law until someone makes an observation
that does not follow this mathmatical relation.

> Furthermore, the justification for this extrapolation is 
>based on theoretical considerations about the transmission of light 
>and the geometry of space.  So the inverse square law is no different 
>in this respect than Evolutionary theory.

Your ignorance of science is as abysmal as your ignorance of theology
Jabby. You attempt to quibble by imposing  your own narrow definition
of terms on those with whom you debate, which you have no authority to
do.

law, n
in philosophy, science, etc.  a statement of a relation or sequence of
phenomena invariable under the same conditions.

"A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously
verified observation."

"A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among
facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship."

See: http://ourworld.cs.com/jamessfreeman16/TheoryandLaw.htm

## You can't teach a pig to sing! 
## It wastes your time and annoys the pig!