On 2/16/2012 9:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
elevated to a law", in all scientific disciplines that you imply with
the above statement:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

The way I learned it corresponds to the following:

"Words have precise meanings in science.

snip of preaching to the choir

In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently get. You
can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on it. You can let
your sister marry it.

And, as with a "Law", _only_ until evidence is presented that refutes it.

In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or even
mere possibility.

That's my theory.

Yabbut, that is not what you originally said ... and there would have
been no argument had that been the case:

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down."

Hell, you even specified a rough time period that it takes for a
"theory" to become a "law".

The point always being, there is no hierarchy in rank between a "theory"
and "law".

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop