The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[polymath257]

Aren't 'Laws' more a subset of ''Theories'?

Laws and theories stem from two separate traditions, or perspectives, on science. One group thinks science should describe the universe, the other that it should explain the universe. The search for the "laws of nature" is a bit outdated, mostly because newer fields like biology have little use for them. Theories have, however, been used to explain scientific laws in the past; and I suppose that in this sense laws can be a subset of theories. But in general they are siblings of each other.

The terminology is anything but standardized.

There is certainly the sense that Laws are better than Theories, supposedly by being more reliable. So, Newton's laws of motion were seen as exact and inviolable, even necessary laws. His law of gravity was seen as universal and absolute. On the other hand, Snell's law of refraction only dealt with one topic: the refraction of light.

The view that Laws were inviolate and absolute, though, pretty much went out the window when Newton's laws were overturned for quantum theory and the theory of relativity. Those 'theories' were certainly more accurate than the older 'laws'. Since that time, physicists have been loathe to call anything a 'law', although the word is sometimes used for some 'rules of thumb' that are simple to memorize and are used to get first estimates.

These days, the term 'theory' is mostly used for an attempt to unify a large collection of phenomena in a single system. But even there, exceptions exist. The 'laws' tend to be more limited in use and more simplifications to help understanding.

Another issue is the describe/explain distinction. Take, for example, Newton's laws of motion and the law of gravity. Those can be used to 'explain' the motions of the planets, but there is no 'explanation' of why those particular laws are the 'right' ones. The same can be said, at a different level, for *all* 'theories' that attempt to be fundamental. In a sense, the only 'explanations' are those based on the fundamental theories, usually by simplifying them in particular cases.

So, for example, the properties of chemical binds are 'explained' by quantum mechanics. Those properties can then be used to 'explain' which chemical reactions occur. But there is no 'explanation' of why quantum mechanics works.