Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy
No, because there is evidence that they are true: scientific laws are created by humans for the purpose of fitting all the data (while theories explain the reasons for the data). If there is not enough evidence, then there will be no law in the first place.
|
So fitting the data is enough to consider it "law"? Its enough evidence to consider it solid truth?
Quote:
|
It's "proven to fit the data," because that's what they were created to do; there is no reason not to believe in it without contradicting evidence, in which case the law is disproven and replaced.
|
Its proven to fit the data, but its not proven as a whole? Is this really enough truth for the word "law"? I understand its practicality and its uses for simplicity but I believe this needs more clarification.