I must have something wrong with me. I have never thought of equations that describe physical phenomena (for example - Newtonian gravitation) as "laws", for the simple reason that they are easily falsifiable (or unreliable) in complex systems. To me they were always no more than useful approximations, if and only if the effects of other …
I must have something wrong with me. I have never thought of equations that describe physical phenomena (for example - Newtonian gravitation) as "laws", for the simple reason that they are easily falsifiable (or unreliable) in complex systems. To me they were always no more than useful approximations, if and only if the effects of other factors could be manipulated to be small enough to be ignored. If we don't like referring to them as "laws" because they are approximations, can we at least admit that these things have, to some useful level of accuracy, helped to make some damned complex systems real, like Hoover Dams and passenger aircraft. If we want to go on a philosophical binge for the sake of reinventing physics and natural philosophy, I'm all for it and wait, all agog, in anticipation. Just let's please not make a big deal of "laws" being wrong to justify where we want to go with this, lest our "new laws" also turn out to be merely useful approximations.
Having said all that, thank you sir Briggs for bringing this to our attention.
I must have something wrong with me. I have never thought of equations that describe physical phenomena (for example - Newtonian gravitation) as "laws", for the simple reason that they are easily falsifiable (or unreliable) in complex systems. To me they were always no more than useful approximations, if and only if the effects of other factors could be manipulated to be small enough to be ignored. If we don't like referring to them as "laws" because they are approximations, can we at least admit that these things have, to some useful level of accuracy, helped to make some damned complex systems real, like Hoover Dams and passenger aircraft. If we want to go on a philosophical binge for the sake of reinventing physics and natural philosophy, I'm all for it and wait, all agog, in anticipation. Just let's please not make a big deal of "laws" being wrong to justify where we want to go with this, lest our "new laws" also turn out to be merely useful approximations.
Having said all that, thank you sir Briggs for bringing this to our attention.