What makes the rules of “scientific”? Are these rules of perspective scientific laws? Or are they something different?
(by Christopher W. Tyler)
(each of the five small images is a link to a short description of alternate ways of depicting space)
Are scientific laws “devices”? Are the rules of perspective “discovered”? Or are they invented? Are one-point perspective drawings more realistic as representations of space than “flat” drawings from the middle ages? Can the development of representational drawing be fruitfully compared to the development of scientific theory? If yes, can a direct relationship be established? Or only an indirect one?
I suspect you’re making too much of the word “law”. As Wikipedia clarifies, “A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm’s law only applies to constant currents, Newton’s law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli’s principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke’s law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.”
I guess since the rules of perspective have no predictive power, they aren’t scientific laws. But are they “scientific” at all? The word is so commonly used. The “scientific rules of perspective”…
Actually, I think there are some scientific processes which have been given the status of laws. One is Newton’s universal law of gravitation. Another is the genetic code that determines the growth and structure of organisms. There are many more in the realm of physics as well, such as Archimedes’ principle of buoyancy.
Also, many people get confused over the difference between theory and hypothesis. A scientific theory can carry the weight of a law, but can be subject to change and improvement as well. Examples are the theories of evolution and Relativity.
Last, a scientific law can work perfectly within its predictable domain, but not work in another domain. This is true of classical physics as opposed to quantum physics. But it’s never a good idea to throw the law out because it is needed in the domain where it works.