Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pOvcK-0000Q8C; Tue, 25 Jan 94 23:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8007; Tue, 25 Jan 94 23:48:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8005; Tue, 25 Jan 1994 23:48:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7957; Tue, 25 Jan 1994 22:47:08 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:47:22 GMT+1200 Reply-To: Chris Handley Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Handley Organization: University of Otago Subject: Re: Darwin's five laws To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2395 Lines: 47 Hi all >In a message to soc.culture.scientists, on testing the Sapir-Whorf >hypothesis, Benjamin J. Tilly referred to "Darwin's theory of evolution". >Lojbab passed the message on to the Lojban list. > <...> > _Hypothesis_ implies insufficiency of presently attainable evidence >and, therefore, a tentative explanation; _theory_ implies a much >greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth; _law_ >implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found >to be invariable under the same conditions. The terms are not rigidly >applied, however... > As you claim, the natural order of progression is that somenone makes some observations, and forms a hypothesis as to their relationships and causes. >From this hypothesis she makes some predictions, devises some experiments and tests those predictions. If the predictions stand up and the experiments are repeatible and reproducible, then the relationships will become a theory. If a convincing mathematical expression for this relationship *can be deduced from first principles* in such a way that it can be demonstrated not to be false (i.e it has much the same status as a theorem) then it becomes a law. Note that all the evidence in the world is not sufficient to turn a theory into a law -- merely observing the sunrise every morning for 10^6 years is not sufficient -- you have to demonstrate that the rotation of the earth inexorably leads to the rising of the sun (and all the other associated phenomena). Thus no amount of evidence can verify a theory (although it strengthens it considerably) but one counter example can falsify it. The absence of such evidence is not sufficient unless one can show that such a counter example can never arise. For more strictly defined examples, consider the progress of the 4-colour map hypothesis, Fermat's last 'theorem', Riemann's hypothesis or Goldbach's conjecture. ====================================================================== Chris Handley chandley@otago.ac.nz Dept of Computer Science Ph (+64) 3-479-8499 University of Otago Fax (+64) 3-479-8577 Dunedin, NZ ______________________________________________________________________ There are three types of Computer Scientist: those who can count and those who can't.