Understanding the Difference Between Real and Fake Laws in Science
Written on
Chapter 1: Distinguishing Genuine Laws from Misconceptions
When was the last time you encountered someone citing a so-called scientific law? With misleading information proliferating daily, it has become essential to discern genuine laws from those that are fabricated. You don't need to be a scientist to make this distinction. A basic understanding of specific scientific terminology is all that's required to differentiate between the authentic and the spurious.
In this discussion, I will walk you through the key terminology that will enable you to recognize valid scientific laws. We will explore the stages of observation and fact, move on to hypothesis and experimentation, and finally discuss theory and law. Before diving into these terms, it’s important to clarify the difference between common vernacular and scientific terminology.
Section 1.1: Common Language vs. Scientific Language
The terminology we will cover has distinct meanings in everyday language compared to scientific discourse. For instance, when someone says, "I have a theory about how the balloon popped," they likely mean a simple guess or intuition. In everyday language, this is acceptable. However, in scientific terms, a theory is a much more complex construct (which I will explain shortly). The appropriate scientific term for that guess about the balloon would be a hypothesis.
In popular language, a law is often seen as an unchanging truth, while in science, laws are rigid yet not absolute; they are subject to experimentation and validation. A scientific law is never deemed true solely because of its existence. There are additional nuances concerning laws that I will elaborate on later.
Now that we have established the foundational differences between common and scientific language, let’s delve into the scientific approach for formulating laws and theories.
Subsection 1.1.1: Observation and Fact
In the realm of science, an observation occurs whenever an event of significance is noted. Observations are inherently subjective, meaning that different observers can interpret the same event in various ways.
When an event captures the attention of a sufficient number of people, the community collaborates to establish facts. Facts aim for relative objectivity; when multiple observers confirm the same observation, it becomes less subjective and more objective. While achieving perfect objectivity is philosophically challenging (and beyond the scope of this discussion), in scientific terms, a fact approaches what is commonly referred to as truth. Examples of facts include "objects are drawn towards the earth" and "global temperatures have been rising."
Section 1.2: Hypothesis and Experimentation
Once facts have emerged from observations, the scientific community shifts its focus to understanding causation—essentially, explaining the "why" and "how" of observed phenomena.
To accomplish this, researchers typically propose an idea that tentatively explains the phenomenon, known as a hypothesis. This hypothesis may or may not be valid; the only method to ascertain its accuracy is through testing. Hypotheses are generally evaluated via structured experiments. Each aspect of the hypothesis is tested incrementally, a process that continues until the hypothesis is refined enough to transition into a theory.
Chapter 2: Theory and Law
Theory and law are often mistakenly treated as synonymous, but in scientific contexts, they have distinct meanings. A theory seeks to explain the underlying reasons for a phenomenon, whereas a law merely describes the phenomenon under specific conditions.
A scientific theory provides a detailed explanation, connecting various aspects of the phenomenon, while a scientific law offers a concise model for describing it, often in mathematical terms. The formulation of a law does not delve into deeper causal explanations; instead, it produces outputs based on inputs with rigorous validation through experimentation and observation.
The first video, "How To Spot Fake Funko Pops! (Real Vs Fake One Piece Scam Guide)", illustrates how to differentiate genuine collectibles from counterfeit ones, providing insights into recognizing authenticity.
The second video, "Is This Law REAL or FAKE?", examines various laws and misconceptions, helping viewers discern what constitutes a legitimate scientific law.
Section 2.1: Evolution and Change in Scientific Theory
In everyday language, the term "theory" often carries little weight, leading to phrases like, "It's just a theory." In contrast, a scientific theory is a sophisticated construct that holds considerable significance.
A scientific theory evolves from a hypothesis and is subject to rigorous testing. It remains open to being challenged, which is essential for scientific advancement. Theories that withstand extensive scrutiny gain substantial scientific credibility. Notable examples include the theory of evolution, climate change theory, and the big bang theory.
Conversely, while a scientific theory is adaptable, a scientific law is generally more resistant to change. However, it is not entirely inflexible. If a law evolves or is disproved, it indicates a significant shift in our understanding of the phenomenon, much like the transformation of Newton's laws of gravity.
Section 2.2: Identifying Fake Laws
When individuals refer to laws like the "Law of Attraction" or "Moore's Law," they are typically viewed as absolute truths in common discourse.
Law of Attraction: In scientific terms, the Law of Attraction is not a true law but rather a flawed concept that suffers from biases such as hindsight bias and tautological definitions. Tautology is defined as a logical combination of statements that remains true regardless of the truth of the individual components.
An example might be: "By visualizing positive thoughts, you can bring about positive outcomes. If you don't see positive outcomes, your thoughts simply aren't positive enough." These statements cannot be disproven, rendering the "law" fundamentally flawed.
Moore's Law: Similarly, Moore's Law originated as an observation regarding transistors, stating that their quantity doubles approximately every two years. While this observation has held true historically, it lacks the scientific rigor necessary to qualify as a law.
Moore's Law is not easily testable, repeatable, or precisely measurable, as it relies on future technological advancements to validate its predictions. Additionally, the vague phrasing of its definition leads to imprecise measurements, further undermining its credibility as a scientific law.
Having explored these terminologies and their implications, you are now equipped to discern what constitutes a genuine scientific law versus a misconception. You no longer need to accept claims at face value.
Science thrives on inquiry. The goal is not to cast doubt indiscriminately but to continuously question and refine our understanding of phenomena. Embracing the possibility of being wrong is essential for progress. Only by navigating through erroneous beliefs can we advance towards a more accurate understanding of reality.
I hope you found this exploration enlightening and informative. If you wish to support my work as an author, consider applauding, following, and subscribing. For further reading, you might find topics like "The Strong Law of Small Numbers," "Why Do You See Mirrors Flipping Words?" and "Are We Living In A Simulation?" intriguing.