Science question...

[quizbowllee]

There has been some debate amongst the members of my team and myself concerning the following question:

In the world of science, are "laws" and "rules" the same thing?

This came about in reference to Kirchoff's Circuit Rules. I said that they are referred to as "rules" after someone referred to them as "laws." This sparked the debate in question. I'd like to get feedback, especially from those of you in the science fields.

Thanks,

Lee

[pray for elves]

I learned them as Kirchhoff's laws, and my father (a physicist) calls them Kirchhoff's laws. I've definitely heard them referred to as rules, though, although I have no idea if one is more correct than the other.

[First Chairman]

The physics folks among us can probably clarify better. Part of it is semantics, but we don't have the "Right Hand Law" to determine direction of magnetic fields. We also don't have the "Rules of Thermodynamics" for a good reason.

I have to check more on nomenclature, but usually "rules" are meant for conventions and measurements, while "laws" tend to have more grounding in the theory and hypothesis-based experiments. But that's just me thinking off the top of my head about this.

So I guess legally, there are conventions and rules for driving in order to be within the laws of traffic. The "right of way" seems to be a rule, and you can't get arrested for not following the "right of way" unless there is a traffic law that dictates it.

[Tegan]

My two bits:

From a physics dude:

In common parlance, even among scientists, they are fairly interchangable. That isn't to say that I wouldn't take a swipe at a kid who called it the "Rule of Inertia", but on things like Kirchoff's thingamabobbers, I have heard it both ways, one of which was from a kindly Austrian at Fermilab who called it Kirchoff's Law, despite always hearing it as "Kirchoff's rule".

When I am moderating, I tend to be very lenient on these matters for that reason: geography and educational tradition may dictate a lot on what these things are called.

For that matter "Theory" and "Law" are fairly interchangable in some circumstances (Law of Gravity/Theory of Gravity ....pretty much the same thing ..... Law of Natural Selection/Theory of Natural Selection .... very interchangable)

[cvdwightw]

Strangely, I've heard them as Kirchoff's Laws when referred to as a group, but the Loop and Junction Rules when referred to individually. I know this just makes things more confusing, but maybe that demonstrates how interchangeable some things are in common parlance.

[Stained Diviner]

In my younger days, I was told that a Law is some fundamental truth that started off as a Hypothesis, then became a Theorem when it was confirmed, then became a Law when it was decided that it was always true and the basis of further theorems. I was also told that scientists often try to avoid the word Law, because at one time one of its prominent uses was the Law of the Conservation of Mass, which is no longer believed (or was modified, depending on your point of view).

Rules, on the other hand, usually refer to shortcuts or truths that are not fundamental to the field, which is what Kirchhoff's Rules are.

However, my experiences parallel those of cvdwightw and Mr. Egan. In Quizbowl, there are no cases in which one should be acceptable but not the other.

[Captain Sinico]

At present, they might as well be the same thing in general, except in cases where someone has both a law and a rule that are different things (and none of those spring to mind...)
Historically, a "law" was something that was derived straightaway from empirical data (like Ohm's law or Kepler's laws) whereas a rule was something derived from other strictures revealing some aspect of a physical situation (like the right-hand rule.) However, time, the inertia of language, and the nature of scientific progress have blurred this distinction to the point where it is no longer important in general.

MaS

[Tegan]

However, my experiences parallel those of cvdwightw and Mr. Egan. In Quizbowl, there are no cases in which one should be acceptable but not the other.

The General Law of Relativity ........?

Just tossing another fly into the ointment ....

[rchschem]

I defer to the actual practitioners of science who have already posted, and in general would accept both. However, I always understood (and teach) that a law is a mathematical statement, like the "law of universal gravitation" (for which the math works smashingly, at least classically, but little or no explanation for how it works exists), whereas a "rule" does not necessarily. Kirchoff's Rules do contain math, and while the so-called Right Hand Rule(s) (whether Lorentz force, angular momentum, or what have you) stem from mathematical relationships, they don't necessarily use equations.

AFA QB is concerned, I would say this is semantics. I would caution against basing anything on the steps of any so-called "scientific method" (i.e. hypothesis/observation/theory/conclusion or whatever order you may have learned it in), as this is bound to cause arguments. There are as many ways to present this idea as you can imagine, and there is no consistency among teachers. Plus, it's not necessarily valid anyway.

I loves me some Feyerabend.

Eric

[sweaver]

Mostly, it's a function of when the principle in question was stated. We don't call them "laws" anymore, because we have learned that our views change with time and new information. Hence, it is not the "Law of Relativity" or the "Law of Evolution," but the theory of those things. By the same token, Newton's "Laws of Motion" have been superseded by relativity.

By and large, there are historical reasons why things are called Laws, Rules, or Theories, and should always be referred to as such. Newton's Theories of Motion just doesn't sound right.

[Captain Sinico]

I don't think that's right. There are plenty of things coined these days that are called laws (for example, the statement that the views of science change discontinuously with information is known as Kuhn's law, a name coined some time after 1962.)
I also disagree that it is in general true that there are good reasons things are called laws, rules or theories. The common name of a scientific statement, where one exists, is often a result of the accidents of time and encapsulates little important information.

MaS

[Captain Sinico]

I think a point is in order on the difference between a theory and a theorem. A theory is not in general a single statement, but rather an entire corpus of scientific results resting on some principles (for example, the Darwinian theory of evolution results from the principle of fitness by natural selection, or the general theory of relativity results from the principle of equivalence.) Conversely, a theorem is a single statement that has been rigorously proven, assuming some postulates or principles (like Pythagoras' theorem, or the Buckingham pi theorem.)
Thus, it is probably not acceptable in general to replace theory with law, rule, theorem, etc. There may be some cases where the term theory is used to refer to a single result (for example, the form of the scientific method I was taught said one is to explain data by making a hypothesis, which withstands testing to become a theory, then a law) and, in these cases, other words should be allowed; however, I am unaware of any such that appear as quizbowl answers.

MaS