Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Which is the most important theory/law in science?

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Which is the most important finding in science?
Kepler's laws of planetary motion 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Hess's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Le Chatelier's principle 14%  14%  [ 2 ]
Joule's laws 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Newton's laws of motion or gravitation 21%  21%  [ 3 ]
Pascal's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Planck's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Snell's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ohm's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Kirchhoff's laws 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Gauss's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Fourier's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Faraday's law of induction 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Einstein's general or special theory of relativity 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Dalton's law of partial pressure 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Coulomb's law 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Darwin's theory of evolution 57%  57%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 14

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Dec 2009, 7:10 pm

You left out quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics to say nothing of the Standard Model for Fields and Particles.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Dec 2009, 7:15 pm

Sand wrote:
Probably the most important law is that it's possible to have laws. In other words that the universe acts in ways we can comprehend. At least, so far.


That is not a law. That is a general assumption that the laws of physics are uniform in space and time. There is no possible empirical proof for this as it would require one be everywhere and always. Not possible. On the other hand without the assumption (and that is what it is, an assumption) of uniformity, science would not be possible.

We don't know that the universe is totally comprehensible by humans. We are 15 orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length and Planck Time. It is not clear that we could comprehend the cosmos at such reduced scales of space and time.

At this juncture our grasp of chaotic dynamical processes is far from complete. Humans don't do turbulence in their heads very well, but any ten year old kid can do enough ballistics in his head to shag a fly ball. And all without the benefit of differential equations too!

ruveyn



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

05 Dec 2009, 7:19 pm

I must admit I don't know must of laws there. :(
I will consider the must important scientific discovery not a law, but a discovery. The discovery of the germs by Louis Pasteur. Before that about half of the population died before they 18th birthday. The discovery changed that by allowing eficient hygien mesures and treatments. In developped country childs die much more raelly now, and that's a HUGE progress,


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Dec 2009, 8:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
Probably the most important law is that it's possible to have laws. In other words that the universe acts in ways we can comprehend. At least, so far.


That is not a law. That is a general assumption that the laws of physics are uniform in space and time. There is no possible empirical proof for this as it would require one be everywhere and always. Not possible. On the other hand without the assumption (and that is what it is, an assumption) of uniformity, science would not be possible.

We don't know that the universe is totally comprehensible by humans. We are 15 orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length and Planck Time. It is not clear that we could comprehend the cosmos at such reduced scales of space and time.

At this juncture our grasp of chaotic dynamical processes is far from complete. Humans don't do turbulence in their heads very well, but any ten year old kid can do enough ballistics in his head to shag a fly ball. And all without the benefit of differential equations too!

ruveyn


All scientific "laws" are assumptions that are accepted by empirical experience until further investigation indicates they must be modified or rejected in favor of other assumptions which then are temporarily held. That's what science is about. All assumptions are potentially rejectable. Some more likely than others.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Dec 2009, 10:36 am

Sand wrote:

All scientific "laws" are assumptions that are accepted by empirical experience until further investigation indicates they must be modified or rejected in favor of other assumptions which then are temporarily held. That's what science is about. All assumptions are potentially rejectable. Some more likely than others.


We really cannot know how "likely" our laws are to be true in general, because we are far removed (15 orders of magnitude) from the smallest distances and time definable within our current schemes of math, measurement and theory. All we can say is that our current laws and theories are a pretty good fit to reality observed at the scales of size, distance and time for which they are currently formulated. Until we get to Rock Bottom (assuming Rock Bottom exists) we don't know what reality really is. We only know how it appears to us and our instruments. Science deals with the phenomena, not the Underlying Reality. That is one of few valid points that Kant made.

ruveyn