What Is A Law?

[Theland]

How do scientists determine what is a law?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?

[Old_Geezer]

Pretty much. But it takes a single verifiable different result to cast doubt on it being a law. Often though, it just means that the law as initially defined isn't complete. Thus you see Newton's laws superceded by those described by Einstein, and likely eventually redefined by someone else. The original definitions may well be near enough for practical uses though.

[Mamyalynne]

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

[ToraToraTora]

in science the "laws" are not absolute, they are merely the latest understanding. In many cases we are pretty sure they are correct but we are always ready to revise them when new data comes along.

[Theland]

You have probably guessed where I'm going with this, biogenesis /abiogenesis.
We observe, without any exception whatsoever, that every living thing, whether plant or animal, requires a parent.
So, abiogenesis is a violation of the observed law of biogenesis.
Yes?

[Neveracrossword]

Wouldn't 'deviation' be a better description?

[Old_Geezer]

No. It is about how a non-living thing gets to be considered a living thing. You may consider the non-living thing a parent or not, depending on how you define "parent". Personally I'd not call it a parent until it does something more than just split into two in order to replicate itself.

[ToraToraTora]

I wondered how long that would take! Just another of your silly religious posts.

[Theland]

I wondered how long that would take!
The arrival of the Answerbank Thought Police!

[jim360]

"So, abiogenesis is a violation of the observed law of biogenesis.
Yes?"

No. Biogenesis isn't a "law", in the sense that you are trying to apply the term.

[Neveracrossword]

Theland, there are semantics involved here. You're obviously wanting to define things to suit yourself - rather than the scientific world or even the ordinary world - so that they can fit one of your theories.

[Theland]

Never - Not at all. A genuine enquiry.

[pixie374]

Theland, while I'm obviously not a scientist.... surely it's clear, that no matter the origin, all living things must have come from non-living somehow? Whether you go with abiogenesis or a god. Either should be just as impossible from your point of view?

[archibaldy]

Good point Pixie. 'God' as described in the bible violates many scientific laws, theories and simple common sense observations about life. God and science cannot exist in the same thought domain.

[Theland]

Not at all Pixie.
Abiogenesis insists it adherents, is a natural process, from a naturalistic worldview.
Creation, of course, is not.

[Neveracrossword]

Thanks, Theland. Your terminology still seems rather slanted. As soon as 'violation' appeared, I guessed that there was going to be an agenda, not just genuine curiosity.

[Theland]

Archbaldy, I totally disagree.
God can't violate laws he made? Can He?
As for common sense, life from inert chemicals?
Now that's problematic.

[pixie374]

Theland, I'm not an "adherent" although it does seem the most likely explanation, just from common sense. How did god manage to create everything from nothing- from a scientific point of view?
Also... what is your definition of "living"?

[Theland]

Never - Quite seriously, my enquiry was about the attitude of science towards the one and only instance that is at odds with every instance since.

[Peter Pedant]

// I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.//

you dont understand it

Lamarcks law in biology - cut off a pussy cats tails for as many generation and then you will get tailless cats....
wasnt improved, it was just wrong!

Darwin who came next was clearly much better - but not an improvement on Lamarck - just different and explained more

Mendel produced his ( numerical ) laws - but some things dont follow Mendel - this doesnt disprove mendel
Mendels laws dont apply to sweet corn.

sweet corn ( mais ) has transposable genetic elements - transposons for which Barbara McClintock got a nobel, (yes?)
But that does not mean that McC ever disproved some law wrong (no!) and another law right (yes!)
(yes! no!)

science and more specifically biological science doesnt work and has never worked on this binary idea ( no!)

[jim360]

What makes you think abiogenesis only happened once?