I’m deadly serious. Scientific laws are based upon repeated observations and describe and even predict some aspect of the natural world.
Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2 summarizes quantitatively the relationship between energy and mass.
Maxwell’s equations summarize many aspects of electric-magnetic fields.
Newton’s Laws of Motion summarize relationships between force, mass, and acceleration.
In all my years to teaching, I never had anyone object to any of this. Your reaction surprises me.
Now, as to my brand of humor, I can certainly understand that comedy doesn’t always travel well internationally and it can be very subjective even within its own community. (The name of the Youtube channel Funny or Die reflects this reality. A comedy idea can be funny to some and totally die with a dull thud with others.)
Not objecting to any of it. Just think approximation is a far better word than summarizing.
Summarizing involves understanding something completely and them explaining it in a precis form.
I don’t think Science can claim to have done that.
All scientific models are approximations. Some of them are very accurate in predicting some aspects of the natural world.
Newton created a mathematical model to explain the behaviour of massive objects in 3d space that was very good at predicting the motion of planets. Einstein created a better more accurate model.
However even Einstein’s model is an approximation.
Interesting. I wonder if we are dealing with the differing connotations which can arise with particular words in various English-speaking parts of the world. I would never claim that summarizing involves “understanding something completely.” That English language definition is completely foreign to me.
I can summarize Biblical doctrines of the attributes of God. But I would never claim that that summarizing indicates that I understand God completely.
I can summarize the political views of my closest friends without understanding those views completely in every detail.
Newton’s Laws of Motion summarized important relationships between acceleration, mass, and force without understanding important aspects of relativity.
POSTSCRIPT: I will soon be disappearing from PS for a few days while travelling. So I don’t want anybody to think I have ignored their replies or questions.
Perhaps we are using the word differently.
The way I see it, Einstein’s general relativity, uses time as the fourth dimension, in mathematical calculations to simulate the effects of gravity.
This is a model. A curvature in space time indicates a 5th dimension into which space time is curving. Some theories like string theory needs even more dimensions to explain.
None of this means that these extra dimensions all actually exist. They are tools that help the kodelf function.
It doesn’t summarise anything. We don’t know if the space time in Einstein’s equations deals qualitatively with time as we experience it. It’s a mathematical calculation that works.
Hence approximation is far better than summarisation imo.
Edit : Same thing with Newton’s laws. Newton envisioned gravity as a force acting at a distance. This need not have been true and is probably false.
However, the model worked within limitations.
It is strange that people think this is a scientific conclusion. I have never read a single scientific paper where conclusion is “it’s a naturalistic process”. What @BWhite seems to be describing is the definition of science, not a conclusion.
If @BWhite is still around, I would love to hear if there are any scientific theories he does accept. Do germs cause disease? Is matter made up of atoms?
It is interesting how the same people who argue against the concept of the scientific method so vociferously also try to couch their own ideas in terms of natural processes. I have always chalked it up to cognitive dissonance.
‘The laws of God’ to me means the moral law, or, as I like to characterize them, the laws of love. To suggest that they have anything to with natural law or ‘scientific law’ is, as you said, ridiculous.
The laws of heaven and earth to which God refers via Jeremiah absolutely do equate to natural law, with the distinction between natural law and ‘scientific law’ that @Chris_Falter elucidated above.
(The name of the Youtube channel Funny or Die reflects this reality. A comedy idea can be funny to some and totally die with a dull thud with others.)
Good grief.