What is a scientific law definition. The concept of scientific law: the laws of nature and the laws of science
necessary, essential, stable, recurring connection of things and phenomena. The category Z. reflects the objective and universal relationships between objects and their properties, systemic objects and their subsystems, elements, and structures. Z. differ from each other: 1) according to the degree of generality: universal, universal (for example, Z. dialectics: mutual transition of quantitative changes into qualities, etc.); general, acting in plural. region and studied by a number of sciences (for example, Z. conservation of energy); special, operating in one region. and studied by one science or branch of science (for example, Z. natural selection); 2) according to the spheres of being and forms of movement of matter: inanimate nature, living nature and society, as well as thinking; 3) according to the relations of determination: dynamic (for example, the laws of mechanics) and statistical (for example, the laws of molecular physics), etc. In addition to the concept of “Z.” in philosophy and science, the category of regularity is also used, which denotes a set of new things, a manifestation of the interconnected and ordered nature of the interaction of objects, phenomena, and events in the world. R.A. Burkhanov
Great Definition
SCIENTIFIC LAW
universal, necessary statement about the connection of phenomena. The general form of N.E.: “For any object from a given subject area, it is true that if it has property A, then it must also have property B.” The universality of the law means that it applies to all objects in its field, acts at any time and at any point in space. The necessity inherent in the New Age is not logical, but ontological. It is determined not by the structure of thinking, but by the structure of the real world, although it also depends on the hierarchy of statements included in the scientific theory. AD are, for example, the statements: “If a current flows through a conductor, a magnetic field forms around the conductor”, “Che-
the chemical reaction of oxygen with hydrogen gives water”, “If the country does not have a developed civil society, there is no stable democracy in it.” The first of these laws relates to physics, the second to chemistry, and the third to sociology.
AD are divided into dynamic and statistical. The first, also called the laws of rigid determination, fix strictly unambiguous connections and dependencies; in the formulation of the latter, methods of probability theory play a decisive role.
Neo-positivism made attempts to find formal-logical criteria for distinguishing N. e. from randomly true general statements (such as “All the swans in this zoo are white”), but these attempts ended in nothing. Nomological (expressing N.E.) statement with a logical perspective. is no different from any other general conditional statement.
The concept of NE, which plays a key role in the methodology of such sciences as physics, chemistry, economics, sociology, and others, is characterized by both ambiguity and inaccuracy. The ambiguity stems from the vagueness of the meaning of the concept of ontological necessity; the inaccuracy is primarily due to the fact that the general statements included in a scientific theory can change their place in its structure in the course of the development of the theory. Thus, the well-known chemical law of multiple ratios was originally a simple empirical hypothesis, which, moreover, had an accidental and dubious confirmation. After the work of the English chemist W. Dalton, chemistry was radically rebuilt. The provision on multiple relations became an integral part of the definition chemical composition, and it became impossible to either verify or disprove experimentally. Chemical atoms can only combine in a one-to-one ratio or in some integer proportion - this is now the constitutive principle of modern chemical theory. In the process of transforming an assumption into a tautology, the proposition about multiple ratios at some stage of its existence turned into a law of chemistry, and then again ceased to be it. The fact that a general scientific statement can not only become a NE, but also cease to be one, would be impossible if ontological necessity depended only on the objects under study and did not depend on the internal structure of the theory describing them, on its hierarchy changing over time. statements.
AD, related to broad areas of phenomena, have a clearly expressed dual, descriptive-prescriptive character (see: Descriptive-evaluative statements). They describe and explain some set of facts. As descriptions, they must correspond to empirical data and empirical generalizations. At the same time, such N.e. are also standards for evaluating both other statements of the theory and the facts themselves. If the role of the value component in AD exaggerated, they become only a means for streamlining the results of observation, and the question of their correspondence to reality (their truth) turns out to be incorrect. So, N. Hanson compares the most common N.z. with the cook's recipes: “Recipes and theories themselves are neither true nor false. But with theory I can say something more about what I observe.” If the moment of description is absolutized, N.z. ontologized and appear as a direct, unambiguous and the only possible reflection of the fundamental characteristics of being.
Thus, three typical stages can be distinguished in the life of AD, which covers a wide range of phenomena: 1) the period of formation, when it functions as a hypothetical descriptive statement and is verified primarily empirically; 2) the period of maturity, when the law is sufficiently confirmed empirically, received its systemic support and functions not only as an empirical generalization, but also as a rule for evaluating other, less reliable statements of the theory; 3) the period of old age, when it is already included in the core of the theory, is used, first of all, as a rule for evaluating its other statements and can only be discarded together with the theory itself; the verification of such a law concerns, first of all, its effectiveness within the framework of the theory, although it still retains the old empirical support received during its formation. At the second and third stages of its existence, N.z. is a descriptive-evaluative statement and is verified as all such statements. For example, Newton's second law of motion was factual truth for a long time. It took centuries of persistent empirical and theoretical research to give it a rigorous formulation. Now this law appears in the framework of Newton's classical mechanics as an analytically true statement that cannot be refuted by any observations.
In the so-called. empirical laws, or laws of small generality, like Ohm's law or Gay-Lussac's law, the estimated component is negligible. The evolution of theories that include such laws does not change the place of the latter in the hierarchy of statements of the theory; new theories that take the place of the old ones fearlessly include such laws in their empirical basis.
One of the main functions of N.z. - an explanation, or an answer to the question: “Why does the phenomenon under study occur?” An explanation is usually a deduction of the phenomenon being explained from some N.z. and statements about initial conditions. This kind of explanation is usually called nomological, or "explanation through an enveloping law." The explanation can be based not only on AD, but also on random general position, as well as the assertion of a causal connection. Explanation through N.z. has, however,
a certain advantage over other types of explanation: it gives the phenomenon being explained the necessary character.
The concept of N.z. began to take shape in the 16th and 17th centuries. during the formation of science in the modern sense of the word. For a long time it was believed that this concept is universal and applies to all areas of knowledge: each science is called upon to establish laws and, on their basis, describe and explain the phenomena under study. The laws of history were discussed, in particular, by O. Comte, K. Marx, J.S. Mill, G. Spencer.
In con. 19th century W. Windelband and G. Rickert put forward the idea that along with the generalizing sciences, which have as their task the discovery of modern economics, there are individualizing sciences that do not formulate any laws of their own, but represent the objects under study in their uniqueness and uniqueness (see: Nomothetic science and Ndiograftes science). They do not set as their goal the discovery of N.z. the sciences dealing with the study of "man in history", or the sciences of culture, as opposed to the sciences of nature. Failures in the search for the laws of history and criticism of the very idea of such laws, begun by Windelband and Rickert and then continued by M. Weber, K. Popper and others, led to the middle. 20th century to a significant weakening of the position of those who connected the very concept of science with the concept of N.z. At the same time, it became clear that, contrary to the opinion of Windelband and Rickert, the boundary between the sciences aimed at the discovery of modern economics and the sciences that have another main goal does not coincide with the boundary between the sciences of nature (nomo-thetic sciences) and cultural sciences (idiographic sciences).
“Science exists only there,” writes the laureate Nobel Prize on economics M. Alle, - where there are patterns that can be studied and predicted. Such is an example of celestial mechanics. But such is the position of the greater part of social phenomena, and especially of economic phenomena. Their scientific analysis really makes it possible to show the existence of regularities as striking as those found in physics. That is why the discipline of economics is a science and is subject to the same principles and the same methods as the physical sciences.” This kind of position is still common among representatives of specific scientific disciplines. However, the opinion that a science that does not establish its own NE is impossible does not stand up to methodological criticism. Economics does indeed formulate specific patterns, but neither political sciences, nor history, nor linguistics, nor even normative sciences like ethics and aesthetics, establish any N.Z. These sciences do not give a nomological, but a causal explanation of the phenomena under study, or they bring to the fore, instead of the operation of explanation, the operation of understanding, which is not based on a description.
satelnye, but on evaluative statements. Formulate N.e. those sciences (natural and social) that use comparative categories as their coordinate system; do not install N.e. sciences (humanitarian and natural), which are based on a system of absolute categories (see: Absolute categories and comparative categories, Historicism, Classification of sciences, Natural sciences and cultural sciences).
About Windelband V. History and natural sciences. St. Petersburg, 1904; Carnap R. Philosophical foundations of physics. Introduction to the philosophy of science. M., 1971; Popper K. Poverty of historiism. M., 1993; Alle M. Philosophy of my life // Alle M. Economics as a science. M., 1995; Nikiforov A.L. Philosophy of Science: History and Methodology. M., 1998; Rickert G. Natural sciences and cultural sciences. M., 1998; Ivin A.A. Theory of argumentation. M., 2000; He is. Philosophy of history. M., 2000; Stepin B.C. theoretical knowledge. Structure, historical evolution. M., 2000.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
1. The concept of scientific law.
The discovery of laws is one of the most important goals of scientific knowledge. As already noted, science begins with direct observations of individual objects and phenomena.The cognitive problem is the determining factor that establishes the totality of objects.Descriptions of these objects always appear in the form of single statements. These single statements, including perceptual and linguistic components, are defined in the structure of scientific knowledge as facts. Many established empirical facts are autonomous descriptions of events. Statements highlighting some common features of recurring events are not directly observable. Therefore, it is necessary to use means to establish common features in a set of facts. The selection of some common feature or group of features is initially achieved through comparison. Hthe direction in which the comparison is made is determined by the value of the features of the object compared and distinguished in thought. O General features have different scientific value in the context of a particular research task. On the basis of significance, signs are divided into essential and non-essential. Significant features are signs of phenomena and a set of objects, each of which, taken separately, is necessary, and all taken together are sufficient to uniquely distinguish this set from others (phenomena and objects). Of course, the logical principle of necessary and sufficient grounds is a guideline and cannot be fully implemented in natural science. But as a methodological norm, it increases the efficiency of scientific research. Every selection and exclusion, the selection of essential features and the exclusion of non-essential ones, presupposes in each individual case a definite point of view. The dependence of this point of view on the goal, on the side that is to be known in the object, makes the essentiality of the signs relative.
The ability to identify an essential feature of phenomena or objects is the most difficult task of scientific research, it does not have an explicit formal solution and is the result of talent and a demonstration of the scale of the scientist's creative imagination. The procedure for highlighting essential features opens up the possibility of asserting about this set in the form of universal statements. Universal statements that reflect the essential features of certain regularities are called "laws". The epistemological status of a law can be determined only within the framework of a certain scientific theory. Only in theory is the significance of scientific law manifested in its entirety. Scientific practice shows that the law in theory plays a decisive role in explaining facts and predicting new ones. In addition, it plays a decisive role in ensuring the conceptual integrity of the theory, building models that interpret the empirical data of the subject area.
Thus, a feature of the law in the aspect of linguistic expression is the universality of its propositional form. Knowledge is always presented in the form of linguistic expressions. Language expressions are of interest in science not so much in their linguistic aspect, but in their logical one.B. Russell defines the logical structure of statements expressing the laws of science in the formgeneral implication. That is, the law of science can be considered as a conditional statement with a general quantifier. So, for example, the law of thermal expansion of bodies can be symbolically represented: x A(x) => B(x), where => is the sign of material implication, is the universal quantifier, x is a variable referring to any body, A is the property "to be heated" and B is the property to "expand". Literally: "for any body x, if this x is heated, then it expands."
The presentation of statements expressing laws in the form of a conditional statement, or more precisely, a material implication, has a number of advantages. First, the conditional form of the statements clearly shows that, in contrast to a simple description, the implementation of the law is related to the implementationcertain requirements. If a there are relevant conditions, then the law is implemented. Secondly, when the law is presented in the form of an implication of propositions, then it is absolutely possible to indicate in it necessary and sufficient conditions for the implementation of the law. So, in order for the body to expand, it is enough to heat it. Thus, the first part of the implication, or its antecedent A(x) serves as a sufficient condition for the realization of its second part, or consequent B(x). Thirdly, the conditional form of statements expressing the laws of science emphasizes the importance of a specific analysis of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the implementation of the law. While in the formal sciences, it is enough to establish the correctness of the implicationpurely logical means and methods, in the empirical sciences, for this one has to turn to the studyspecific facts.For example, the conclusion that the length of a metal rod increases when it is heated does not follow from the principles of logic, but from empirical facts. The exact distinction between the necessary and sufficient conditions for the implementation of the law encourages the researcher to seek and analyze the facts that substantiate these conditions.
2. Empirical and theoretical laws.
In natural science, there are two types of laws: empirical and theoretical.
Empirical knowledge in science begins with the analysis of observational and experimental data, as a result of which ideas about empirical objects arise. In scientific knowledge, such objects act as descriptions of the features of real objects in terms of an empirical language. The cognition of these signs is carried out not directly, but indirectly, through sensory cognition. Sensory cognition is a prerequisite for empirical cognition, but is not identical to it. Sensations and perceptions in the exact sense of the word are forms of sensory, not empirical knowledge. V.A. draws attention to this. Smirnov. Therefore, empirical objects can be considered as models of sensible objects that are directly related to the objects of the external world. Thus, with a broad interpretation of the term "theoretical", empirical laws and theoretical laws become indistinguishable. The criterion for their distinction is scientific practice, in which one can single out two components, one of which is reduced to laboratory-experimental work, the other to theorizing. This difference is reflected in a certain way in the scientific language. Both empirical and theoretical languages are widely used in science. The meaning of the terms of the empirical language is either directly observed objects, or their quantitative description, measured comparatively. in a simple way. The meaning of the terms of theoretical language is the unobservable. For example, the meaning of such concepts as "atom", "field", "gene" is unobservable.
empirical laws,formulated in the form of universal statements, include exclusively the terms of the empirical language. Therefore, these laws reflect qualitative generalizations or certain stable quantitative values of empirical objects. In general, empirical laws are generalizations of observed facts andserve as the basis for predicting future events in a given subject area. For example, the law of thermal expansion. This law is a generalization of a directly observed property of bodies.
Theoretical laws, as noted above, contain terms of a different kind. They are laws about such objects that are not directly observable. Therefore, theoretical laws cannot be obtained analogously to empirical laws. At first glance, it seems that theoretical laws can be established by generalizing empirical laws. Science does not have such theoretical possibilities. There is no logical way to ascend from empirical generalizations to theoretical principles. Inductive reasoning is limited to the area of ascent from the particular to the general. All attempts to overcome the logical flaws of induction have been unsuccessful.
In the methodological aspect, theoretical laws are related to empirical laws in the same way as empirical laws are related to individual facts.. An empirical law helps to describe a certain set of established facts in a certain subject area and to predict facts that have not yet been observed. In the same way, a theoretical law helps to explain empirical laws already formulated. Just as individual facts must take their place in the ordered scheme when they are generalized into an empirical law, so isolated empirical laws fit into the ordered scheme of a theoretical law.
In this scheme, the question remains open: how can a theoretical law on unobservable objects be obtained. If an empirical law can be verified, thentheoretical law is deprived of the possibilityconfirmation through direct observation. Such laws contain in their composition terms, the meaning of which can neither be directly obtained from experience, nor confirmed by it. For example, the theory of molecular processes cannot be obtained through a generalization of direct observation. Therefore, the discovery of theoretical laws is inevitably associated with an appeal to a hypothesis, with the help of which they try to formulate some regularity of an unobservable object. For example, to endow a molecule with some supposed properties. By going through many different assumptions, a scientist can invent a relevant hypothesis. But the relevant hypothesis establishes some regular connections between the properties of an idealized object. While the purpose of theoretical terms is to explain the observed objects. Determining the relevance of a hypothesis occurs indirectly: some consequences are deduced from the hypothesis, which are interpreted in terms of empirical laws, these laws, in turn, are verified by direct observation of the facts.
Law is the knowledge of recurring and necessary connections between particular objects or phenomena.
Universality is the maximum degree of generality.
Links take place under certain conditions. If there are no conditions for the operation of the law, then the law ceases to function. That is, it is not unconditional.
Not all universal sentences are laws. The American philosopher and logician Nelson Goodnen proposed the deducibility of counterfactual statements from universal sentences as a criterion for nomologicalness. For example, the sentence "all the coins in your pocket are copper" (Carnap) is not a law, since the statement "if you put coins in your pocket, they will be copper" is false. That is, this fact was recorded by chance, and not necessarily. At the same time, the statement “all metals expand when heated” is a law, since the statement “if you heat the metal lying here on the table, it will expand” is true.
Classification of scientific laws.
By subject areas. Physical laws, chemical laws, etc.
By generality: general (fundamental) and particular. For example, Newton's laws and Kepler's laws, respectively.
- empirical - referring to directly observed phenomena (for example, Ohm's laws, Boyle - Mariotte);
- theoretical - related to unobservable phenomena.
- dynamic - giving accurate, unambiguous predictions (Newton's mechanics);
- statistical - giving probabilistic predictions (uncertainty principle, 1927).
The main functions of scientific law.
Explanation - disclosure of the essence of the phenomenon. In this case, the law acts as an argument. In the 1930s, Karl Popper and Karl Hempel proposed a deductive-nomological model of explanation. According to this model, in the explanation there is an explanandum - the phenomenon being explained - and an explanans - the explanatory phenomenon. The explanans includes statements about the initial conditions under which the phenomenon occurs, and the laws from which the phenomenon necessarily follows. Popper and Hempel believed that their model was universal—applicable to any field. The Canadian philosopher Dray countered by citing history as an example.
Prediction - going beyond the limits of the studied world (and not a breakthrough from the present into the future. For example, the prediction of the planet Neptune. It was before the prediction. In contrast to the explanation, it predicts a phenomenon that may not have happened yet). There are predictions of similar phenomena, new phenomena, and forecasts - predictions of a probabilistic type, based, as a rule, on trends rather than laws. Forecast is different from prophecy - it is conditional, not fatal. Usually, the fact of prediction does not affect the predicted phenomenon, but, for example, in sociology, predictions can be self-fulfilling.
The effectiveness of the explanation is directly related to the prediction.
Types of explanations (predictions - similarly).
Causal - using causal laws. The expansion of an iron rod can be explained by its heating. That is, in explaining the cause of expansion, the law of thermal expansion is used.
Structural. For example, an explanation of the properties of benzene with a ring-shaped molecule structure (Kekule). That is, the properties are explained on the basis of the structure.
Substratum - referring to the material of which the object is composed. So, for example, the density of the body is explained (it depends on the material). The substrate approach is the basis of molecular biology.
Types of scientific laws
One type of classification is the division of scientific laws into:
Empirical laws are those laws in which, on the basis of observations, experiments and measurements, which are always associated with some limited area of reality, any specific functional connection is established. In different areas of scientific knowledge, there are a huge number of laws of this kind, which more or less accurately describe the relevant connections and relationships. As examples of empirical laws, one can point to the three laws of motion of the planets by I. Kepler, to the equation of elasticity of R. Hooke, according to which, with small deformations of bodies, forces arise that are approximately proportional to the magnitude of the deformation, to a particular law of heredity, according to which Siberian cats with blue eyes are usually naturally deaf.
It should be noted that Kepler's laws only describe the observed motion of the planets, but do not indicate the cause that leads to such motion. . In contrast, Newton's law of gravity indicates the cause and features of the movement of cosmic bodies according to Kepler's laws. I. Newton found the correct expression for the gravitational force arising from the interaction of bodies, formulating the law of universal gravitation: between any two bodies there is an attractive force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. From this law as consequences it is possible to deduce the reasons why the planets move unevenly and why the planets more distant from the Sun move more slowly than those closer to it.
On the example of comparing the laws of Kepler and the law of universal gravitation, the features of empirical and fundamental laws, as well as their role and place in the process of cognition, are quite clearly visible. The essence of empirical laws is that they always describe relationships and dependencies that have been established as a result of the study of some limited sphere of reality. That is why there can be arbitrarily many such laws.
In the case of the formulation of fundamental laws, the situation will be completely different. The essence of fundamental laws is that they establish dependencies that are valid for any objects and processes related to the corresponding area of reality. Therefore, knowing the fundamental laws, one can analytically derive from them many specific dependencies that will be valid for certain specific cases or certain types of objects. Based on this feature of fundamental laws, the judgments formulated in them can be represented in the form of apodictic judgments “It is necessary that ...”, and the relationship between this type of laws and the particular regularities (empirical laws) derived from them will, in their meaning, correspond to the relationship between apodictic and assertive judgments. It is in the possibility of deriving empirical laws from fundamental laws in the form of their particular consequences that the main heuristic (cognitive) value of fundamental laws is manifested. A clear example of the heuristic function of fundamental laws is, in particular, the hypothesis of Le Verrier and Adamas regarding the reasons for the deviation of Uranus from the calculated trajectory.
The heuristic value of fundamental laws is also manifested in the fact that, on the basis of their knowledge, it is possible to carry out a selection of various assumptions and hypotheses. For example, with late XVIII in. in scientific world it is not customary to consider applications for inventions of a perpetual motion machine, since the principle of its operation (efficiency greater than 100%) contradicts the laws of conservation, which are the fundamental principles of modern natural science.
Basis for classification last type is the nature of the predictions resulting from these laws.
A feature of dynamic laws is that the predictions that follow from them are accurate and definitely a certain character. An example of laws of this kind are the three laws of classical mechanics. The first of these laws states that any body in the absence of forces acting on it or with the mutual balancing of the latter is in a state of rest or uniform rectilinear motion. The second law says that the acceleration of a body is proportional to the applied force. From this it follows that the rate of change of speed or acceleration depends on the magnitude of the force applied to the body and its mass. According to the third law, when two objects interact, they both experience forces, and these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Based on these laws, we can conclude that all interactions of physical bodies are a chain of uniquely predetermined cause-and-effect relationships, which these laws describe. In particular, in accordance with these laws, knowing the initial conditions (the mass of the body, the magnitude of the force applied to it and the magnitude of the resistance forces, the angle of inclination with respect to the Earth's surface), it is possible to accurately calculate the future trajectory of any body, for example, a bullet, projectile or rocket.
Statistical laws are laws that predict the course of events only to a certain extent. probabilities . In such laws, the property or attribute under study does not apply to each object of the area under study, but to the entire class or population. For example, when they say that in a batch of 1000 products 80% meet the requirements of the standards, this means that approximately 800 products are of high quality, but which products (by numbers) are not specified.
Within the framework of the molecular kinetic theory, the state of each individual molecule of a substance is not considered, but the average, most probable states of groups of molecules are taken into account. Pressure, for example, arises from the fact that the molecules of a substance have a certain momentum. But in order to determine the pressure, it is not necessary (and it is impossible) to know the momentum of each individual molecule. To do this, it is sufficient to know the values of temperature, mass and volume of a substance. Temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy of many molecules is also an average, statistical indicator. An example of the statistical laws of physics are the laws of Boyle-Mariotte, Gay-Lussac and Charles, which establish the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature of gases; in biology, these are the laws of Mendel, which describe the principles of the transfer of inherited traits from parent organisms to their descendants.
According to quantum mechanical concepts, the microworld can only be described probabilistically due to the "uncertainty principle". According to this principle, it is impossible to simultaneously accurately determine the location of a particle and its momentum. The more precisely the particle coordinate is determined, the more uncertain the momentum becomes and vice versa. From this, in particular, it follows that dynamic laws of classical mechanics cannot be used to describe the microworld . However, the indeterminacy of the microcosm in the Laplace sense does not mean at all that it is generally impossible to predict events in relation to it, but only that the patterns of the microworld are not dynamic, but statistical. The statistical approach is used not only in physics and biology, but also in technical and social sciences (a classic example of the latter is sociological surveys).
When classifying theoretical scientific knowledge in general and, in particular, when classifying scientific laws, it is customary to single out their separate types. At the same time, quite different signs can be used as the basis for classification. In particular, one of the ways to classify knowledge within the framework of the natural sciences is its subdivision in accordance with the main types of motion of matter, when the so-called. "physical", "chemical" and "biological" forms of movement of the latter. As for the classification of the types of scientific laws, the latter can also be divided in different ways.
Due to the fact that on the example of this classification one can clearly see how the process of transition of knowledge, which initially exists in the form of hypotheses, to laws and theories takes place, let us consider this type of classification of scientific laws in more detail.
The basis for dividing laws into empirical and fundamental ones is the level of abstractness of the concepts used in them and the degree of generality of the domain of definition that corresponds to these laws.
Fundamental laws are laws that describe functional dependencies that operate within total volume their respective realms of reality. There are relatively few fundamental laws. In particular, classical mechanics includes only three such laws. The sphere of reality that corresponds to them is the mega- and macrocosm.
As an illustrative example of the specifics of empirical and fundamental laws, we can consider the relationship between Kepler's laws and the law of universal gravitation. Johannes Kepler, as a result of the analysis of materials for observing the movement of the planets, which Tycho Brahe collected, established the following dependencies:
planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun (Kepler's first law);
- The periods of revolution of planets around the Sun depend on their distance from it: more distant planets move more slowly than those that are closer to the Sun (Kepler's third law).
After stating these dependencies, the question is quite natural: why is this happening? Is there any reason that causes the planets to move in this way and not otherwise? Will the dependencies found be valid for other celestial systems, or does this apply only to the solar system? Moreover, even if it suddenly turned out that there is a system similar to the Sun, where the movement is subject to the same principles, it is still unclear: is it an accident or is there something in common behind all this? Maybe someone's hidden desire to make the world beautiful and harmonious? Such a conclusion, for example, can be prompted by the analysis of Kepler's third law, which really expresses a certain harmony, since here the period of revolution of the plan around the Sun depends on the size of its orbit.
The concrete-empirical nature of Kepler's laws is also manifested in the fact that these laws are fulfilled exactly only in the case of the motion of one body near another, which has a much larger mass. If the masses of the bodies are commensurate, their stable joint movement around a common center of mass will be observed. In the case of the planets moving around the Sun, this effect is hardly noticeable, however, there are systems in space that make such a movement - this is the so-called. "double stars".
The fundamental nature of the law of universal gravitation is also manifested in the fact that on its basis it is possible to explain not only quite different trajectories of the movement of cosmic bodies, but it also plays an important role in explaining the mechanisms of formation and evolution of stars and planetary systems, as well as models of the evolution of the Universe. In addition, this law explains the reasons for the features of the free fall of bodies near the surface of the Earth.
The latter circumstance can be a serious obstacle in the matter of knowledge. In the case when the process of cognition does not go beyond the formulation of empirical dependencies, significant efforts will be spent on a lot of monotonous empirical research, as a result of which more and more new relationships and dependencies will be discovered, however, their cognitive value will be significantly limited. Perhaps only within the framework of individual cases. In other words, the heuristic value of such studies will actually not go beyond the boundaries of the formulation of assertoric judgments of the form "It is true that ...". The level of knowledge that can be achieved in a similar way will not go beyond the statement that another unique or fair dependence for a very limited number of cases has been found, which for some reason is exactly this and not another.
It should be noted that the content of any scientific law can be expressed by means of a generally affirmative judgment of the form "All S is P", however, not all true universally affirmative judgments are laws . For example, back in the 18th century, a formula was proposed for the radii of the orbits of the planets (the so-called Titius-Bode rule), which can be expressed as follows: R n = (0.4 + 0.3 × 2n) × R o, where R o - radius of the earth's orbit, n- numbers of planets solar system in order. If we sequentially substitute arguments into this formula n = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, then the result will be the values (radii) of the orbits of all known planets of the solar system (the only exception is the value n=3, for which there is no planet in the calculated orbit, but instead there is an asteroid belt). Thus, we can say that the Titius-Bode rule quite accurately describes the coordinates of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. However, is it at least an empirical law, for example, similar to Kepler's laws? Apparently not, since, unlike Kepler's laws, the Titius-Bode rule does not follow from the law of universal gravitation in any way, and it has not yet received any theoretical explanation. The absence of a necessity component, i.e. what explains why things are so and not otherwise, does not allow us to consider both this rule and similar statements that can be represented as “All S are P” as a scientific law .
Far from all sciences have reached the level of theoretical knowledge that allows analytically deriving heuristically significant consequences for particular and unique cases from fundamental laws. Of the natural sciences, in fact, only physics and chemistry have reached this level. As for biology, although in relation to this science one can also speak about certain fundamental laws - for example, about the laws of heredity - however, in general, within the framework of this science, the heuristic function of fundamental laws is much more modest.
In addition to the division into "empirical" and "fundamental", scientific laws can also be divided into:
Dynamic patterns are attractive in that they are based on the possibility of an absolutely accurate or unambiguous prediction. The world described on the basis of dynamic patterns is absolutely deterministic world . A practically dynamic approach can be used to calculate the trajectory of the movement of macroworld objects, for example, the trajectories of the planets.
However, the dynamic approach cannot be used to calculate the state of systems that include a large number of elements. For example, 1 kg of hydrogen contains molecules, that is, so many that only one problem of recording the results of calculating the coordinates of all these molecules turns out to be obviously impossible. Because of this, when creating a molecular-kinetic theory, that is, a theory describing the state of macroscopic portions of a substance, not a dynamic, but a statistical approach was chosen. According to this theory, the state of a substance can be determined using such averaged thermodynamic characteristics as "pressure" and "temperature".
The statistical approach is a probabilistic method for describing complex systems. The behavior of an individual particle or other object in the statistical description is considered insignificant . Therefore, the study of the properties of the system in this case is reduced to finding the average values of the quantities characterizing the state of the system as a whole. Due to the fact that the statistical law is knowledge about the average, most probable values, it is able to describe and predict the state and development of any system only with a certain probability.
The main function of any scientific law is to predict its future or restore the past state from a given state of the system under consideration. Therefore, it is natural to ask what laws, dynamic or statistical, describe the world at a deeper level? Until the 20th century, it was believed that dynamic patterns were more fundamental. This was because scientists believed that nature is strictly determined and therefore any system can in principle be calculated with absolute accuracy. It was also believed that the statistical method, which gives approximate results, can be used when the accuracy of the calculations can be neglected. . However, due to the creation quantum mechanics the situation has changed.
- Forms and types of property. Civil Code of the Russian Federation on property in Russia Public property in Russian Federation represent: state property (includes […]
- Court of Arbitration Rostov region State duty Tax code of the Russian Federation (part two) Chapter 25.3. State duty Article 333.17 Payers […] The concept of tax types and functions of taxes Taxes: concept, functions, types. Tax system Taxes form the main share of the revenue side of the state and local budgets. A tax is a state-enforced or […]
Scientists from planet Earth use a ton of tools to try to describe how nature and the universe as a whole work. That they come to laws and theories. What is the difference? A scientific law can often be reduced to a mathematical statement, like E = mc²; this statement is based on empirical data and its truth, as a rule, is limited to a certain set of conditions. In the case of E = mc² - the speed of light in vacuum.
A scientific theory often seeks to synthesize a set of facts or observations of specific phenomena. And in general (but not always) there is a clear and verifiable statement about how nature functions. It is not at all necessary to reduce scientific theory to an equation, but it does represent something fundamental about the workings of nature.
Both laws and theories depend on the basic elements of the scientific method, such as making hypotheses, doing experiments, finding (or not finding) empirical evidence, and drawing conclusions. After all, scientists must be able to replicate results if the experiment is to become the basis for a generally accepted law or theory.
In this article, we'll look at ten scientific laws and theories that you can brush up on even if you don't use a scanning electron microscope that often, for example. Let's start with an explosion and end with uncertainty.
If it is worth knowing at least one scientific theory, then let it explain how the universe reached its current state (or did not reach it). Based on studies by Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre, and Albert Einstein, the Big Bang theory postulates that the universe began 14 billion years ago with a massive expansion. At some point, the universe was enclosed in one point and encompassed all the matter of the current universe. This movement continues to this day, and the universe itself is constantly expanding.
The Big Bang theory gained widespread support in scientific circles after Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background in 1965. Using radio telescopes, two astronomers have detected cosmic noise, or static, that does not dissipate over time. In collaboration with Princeton researcher Robert Dicke, the pair of scientists confirmed Dicke's hypothesis that the original Big Bang left behind low-level radiation that can be found throughout the universe.
Hubble's Cosmic Expansion Law
Let's hold Edwin Hubble for a second. While the Great Depression was raging in the 1920s, Hubble was performing groundbreaking astronomical research. Not only did he prove that there were other galaxies besides the Milky Way, but he also found that these galaxies were rushing away from our own, a movement he called receding.
In order to quantify the speed of this galactic motion, Hubble proposed the law of cosmic expansion, aka Hubble's law. The equation looks like this: speed = H0 x distance. Velocity is the speed of the recession of galaxies; H0 is the Hubble constant, or a parameter that indicates the expansion rate of the universe; distance is the distance of one galaxy to the one with which the comparison is made.
The Hubble constant was calculated at different meanings for quite a long time, however, it is currently frozen at a point of 70 km/s per megaparsec. For us it is not so important. The important thing is that the law is a convenient way to measure the speed of a galaxy relative to our own. And more importantly, the law established that the Universe consists of many galaxies, the movement of which can be traced to the Big Bang.
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
For centuries, scientists have battled each other and religious leaders over the orbits of the planets, especially whether they revolve around the sun. In the 16th century, Copernicus put forward his controversial concept of a heliocentric solar system, in which the planets revolve around the sun rather than the earth. However, it was not until Johannes Kepler, who drew on the work of Tycho Brahe and other astronomers, that a clear scientific basis for planetary motion emerged.
Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, developed in the early 17th century, describe the movement of planets around the sun. The first law, sometimes called the law of orbits, states that the planets revolve around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. The second law, the law of areas, says that the line connecting the planet to the sun forms equal areas at regular intervals. In other words, if you measure the area created by a drawn line from the Earth from the Sun and track the movement of the Earth for 30 days, the area will be the same regardless of the position of the Earth relative to the origin.
The third law, the law of periods, allows you to establish a clear relationship between the orbital period of the planet and the distance to the Sun. Thanks to this law, we know that a planet that is relatively close to the Sun, like Venus, has a much shorter orbital period than distant planets like Neptune.
Universal law of gravity
This may be par for the course today, but more than 300 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton proposed a revolutionary idea: any two objects, regardless of their mass, exert a gravitational attraction on each other. This law is represented by an equation that many schoolchildren encounter in the senior grades of physics and mathematics.
F = G × [(m1m2)/r²]
F is the gravitational force between two objects, measured in newtons. M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects, while r is the distance between them. G is the gravitational constant, currently calculated as 6.67384(80) 10 −11 or N m² kg −2 .
The advantage of the universal law of gravity is that it allows you to calculate the gravitational attraction between any two objects. This ability is extremely useful when scientists, for example, launch a satellite into orbit or determine the course of the moon.
Newton's laws
While we're on the subject of one of the greatest scientists ever to live on Earth, let's talk about Newton's other famous laws. His three laws of motion form an essential part of modern physics. And like many other laws of physics, they are elegant in their simplicity.
The first of the three laws states that an object in motion remains in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force. For a ball rolling on the floor, the external force could be friction between the ball and the floor, or a boy hitting the ball in the other direction.
The second law establishes a relationship between the mass of an object (m) and its acceleration (a) in the form of the equation F = m x a. F is a force measured in newtons. It is also a vector, meaning it has a directional component. Due to the acceleration, the ball that rolls on the floor has a special vector in the direction of its movement, and this is taken into account when calculating the force.
The third law is quite meaningful and should be familiar to you: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is, for every force applied to an object on the surface, the object is repelled with the same force.
Laws of thermodynamics
The British physicist and writer C.P. Snow once said that an unscientist who did not know the second law of thermodynamics was like a scientist who had never read Shakespeare. Snow's now famous statement emphasized the importance of thermodynamics and the need even for people far from science to know it.
Thermodynamics is the science of how energy works in a system, whether it be an engine or the Earth's core. It can be reduced to a few basic laws, which Snow outlined as follows:
- You cannot win.
- You will not avoid losses.
- You cannot exit the game.
Let's look into this a bit. What Snow meant by saying you can't win is that since matter and energy are conserved, you can't gain one without losing the other (that is, E=mc²). It also means that you need to supply heat to run the engine, but in the absence of a perfectly closed system, some heat will inevitably escape into the open world, leading to the second law.
The second law - losses are inevitable - means that due to increasing entropy, you cannot return to the previous energy state. Energy concentrated in one place will always tend to places of lower concentration.
Finally, the third law - you can't get out of the game - refers to the lowest theoretically possible temperature - minus 273.15 degrees Celsius. When the system reaches absolute zero, the movement of molecules stops, which means that entropy will reach its lowest value and there will not even be kinetic energy. But in the real world it is impossible to reach absolute zero - only very close to it.
Strength of Archimedes
After the ancient Greek Archimedes discovered his principle of buoyancy, he allegedly shouted "Eureka!" (Found!) and ran naked through Syracuse. So says the legend. The discovery was so important. Legend also says that Archimedes discovered the principle when he noticed that the water in the bathtub rises when a body is immersed in it.
According to Archimedes' principle of buoyancy, the force acting on a submerged or partially submerged object is equal to the mass of fluid that the object displaces. This principle has essential in density calculations, as well as in the design of submarines and other ocean-going vessels.
Evolution and natural selection
Now that we have established some of the basic concepts of how the universe began and how physical laws affect our everyday life, let's look at the human form and find out how we got to this point. According to most scientists, all life on Earth has a common ancestor. But in order to form such a huge difference between all living organisms, some of them had to turn into a separate species.
In a general sense, this differentiation has occurred in the process of evolution. Populations of organisms and their traits have gone through mechanisms such as mutations. Those with more survival traits, like brown frogs that camouflage themselves in swamps, were naturally selected for survival. This is where the term natural selection comes from.
You can multiply these two theories by many, many times, and actually Darwin did this in the 19th century. Evolution and natural selection explain the enormous diversity of life on Earth.
General theory of relativity
Albert Einstein was and remains the most important discovery that forever changed our view of the universe. Einstein's main breakthrough was the statement that space and time are not absolute, and gravity is not just a force applied to an object or mass. Rather, gravity has to do with the fact that mass warps space and time itself (spacetime).
To make sense of this, imagine that you are driving across the Earth in a straight line in an easterly direction from, say, the northern hemisphere. After a while, if someone wants to accurately determine your location, you will be much south and east of your original position. This is because the earth is curved. To drive straight east, you need to take into account the shape of the Earth and drive at an angle slightly north. Compare a round ball and a sheet of paper.
Space is pretty much the same. For example, it will be obvious to the passengers of a rocket flying around the Earth that they are flying in a straight line in space. But in reality, the space-time around them is curving under the force of Earth's gravity, causing them to both move forward and stay in Earth's orbit.
Einstein's theory had a huge impact on the future of astrophysics and cosmology. She explained a small and unexpected anomaly in Mercury's orbit, showed how starlight bends, and laid the theoretical foundations for black holes.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Einstein's expansion of relativity taught us more about how the universe works and helped lay the groundwork for quantum physics, leading to a completely unexpected embarrassment of theoretical science. In 1927, the realization that all the laws of the universe are flexible in a certain context led to the startling discovery of the German scientist Werner Heisenberg.
Postulating his uncertainty principle, Heisenberg realized that it was impossible to know two properties of a particle simultaneously with a high level of accuracy. You can know the position of an electron with a high degree accuracy, but not its momentum, and vice versa.
Later, Niels Bohr made a discovery that helped explain the Heisenberg principle. Bohr found that the electron has the qualities of both a particle and a wave. The concept became known as wave-particle duality and formed the basis of quantum physics. Therefore, when we measure the position of an electron, we define it as a particle at a certain point in space with an indefinite wavelength. When we measure the momentum, we consider the electron as a wave, which means we can know the amplitude of its length, but not the position.
“A scientific law is a statement (statement, judgment, proposition) that has the following characteristics:
1) it is true only under certain conditions;
2) under these conditions, it is true always and everywhere without any exceptions (an exception to the law that confirms the law is dialectical nonsense);
3) the conditions under which such a statement is true are never fully realized in reality, but only partially and approximately.
Therefore, one cannot literally say that scientific laws are found in the reality being studied (discovered). They are invented (invented) on the basis of the study of experimental data in such a way that they can then be used in obtaining new judgments from these judgments about reality (including for predictions) in a purely logical way. By themselves, scientific laws cannot be confirmed and cannot be refuted empirically. They can be justified or not, depending on how well or poorly they fulfill the above role.
Take, for example, the following statement: “If in one institution a person is paid more for the same work than in another institution, then the person will go to work in the first of them, provided that for him work in these institutions does not differ in anything except salary ". The part of the phrase after the words "on that condition" fixes the condition of the law. Obviously, there are no jobs that are the same in everything except the salary. There is only some approximation to this ideal from the point of view of this or that person. If there are cases when a person goes to work in an institution where the salary is lower, then they do not refute the statement in question. In such cases, obviously, the condition of the law is not fulfilled. It may even be that, in observed reality, people always choose to work in institutions with lower pay. And this should not be interpreted as an indicator of the fallacy of our assertion. This may be due to the fact that in such institutions other circumstances of work are more acceptable (for example, shorter working hours, less workload, there is an opportunity to do some of their own business). In such a situation, the statement in question can be excluded from the number of scientific laws as inoperative , unnecessary.
From what has been said, it should be clear that a statement that simply generalizes the results of observations cannot be considered a scientific law.
For example, a person who had to go through the chain of command and observe the bosses different type, can conclude: "All bosses are grabbers and careerists." This statement may or may not be true. But it is not a scientific law, because the conditions are not specified. If the conditions are any or indifferent, this is a special case of the conditions, and this must be indicated. But if the conditions are indifferent, then any situation will give an example of completely realizable conditions of this kind, and the concept of a scientific law cannot be applied to this case.
Usually, as conditions, those conditions are fixed in the sense mentioned above, but only some specific phenomena that can actually be observed. Take, for example, the following statement: "In the case of mass production of products, its quality is reduced, provided that there is mediocre management of this branch of production, there is no personal responsibility for quality and personal interest in maintaining quality." Here the condition is formulated in such a way that examples of such conditions can be given in reality. And the possibility of cases when mass production of products is associated with an increase in its quality is not ruled out, because some other strong reasons not specified in the condition. Such statements are not scientific laws. These are simply general statements which may be true or false, may be supported by examples and refuted by them.
Speaking of scientific laws, we must distinguish between what are called the laws of things themselves, and the statements of people about these laws.
The subtlety of this distinction lies in the fact that we know about the laws of things only by formulating some statements, while we perceive the laws of science as a description of the laws of things. However, the distinction here can be made quite simply and clearly. The laws of things can be written in a variety of linguistic means, including statements like "All men are deceivers", "Punch a mare on the nose, she will wave her tail", etc., which are not scientific laws. If in a scientific law we separate its main part from the description of conditions, then this main part can be interpreted as fixing the law of things. And in this sense, scientific laws are statements about the laws of things.
But singling out scientific laws as special linguistic forms is a completely different orientation of attention compared to the question of the laws of things and their reflection. The similarity of phraseology and the apparent coincidence of problems create here difficulties that are completely inadequate to the banality of the very essence of the matter.
Distinguishing between scientific laws and the laws of things, one must obviously distinguish between the consequences of both. The consequences of the former are statements deduced from them according to general or special (accepted only in a given science) rules. And they are also scientific laws (though derivative of those from which they are derived). For example, it is possible to construct a sociological theory in which, from certain postulates about an individual's desire for irresponsibility for his actions to other individuals who are with him in relation to the commonwealth, statements will be derived about the tendency of individuals to be unreliable (do not keep a given word, do not keep someone else's secret, waste other people's time).
The consequences of the laws of things, fixed by the laws of science, are not the laws of things, but certain facts of reality itself, to which scientific laws refer. Let us take, for example, the law according to which there is a tendency to appoint not the most intelligent and talented people, but the most mediocre and averagely stupid people, but who are pleasing to the authorities in other respects and who have suitable connections, to leadership positions. Its consequence is that in a certain field of activity (for example, in research institutions, in educational institutions, in management art organizations, etc.) leading positions in most cases (or at least often) are occupied by people who are stupid and mediocre from the point of view of business interests, but cunning and dodgy from the point of view of career interests.
People at every step face the consequences of social laws. Some of them are subjectively perceived as accidents (although strictly logically the concept of randomness is not applicable here at all), some are surprising, although they occur regularly. Who has not heard and even spoken about the appointment of a certain person to a leading position: how could such a scoundrel be appointed to such a responsible post, how could such a cretin be entrusted with such a thing, etc. But one should be surprised not by these facts, but by those when smart, honest and talented people get to leadership positions. This is indeed a departure from the law. But it's not a coincidence either. Not randomness, not in the sense that it is natural, but in the sense that the concept of randomness is again inapplicable here. By the way, the expression "responsible post" is absurd, because all posts are irresponsible, or only an indication of the high rank of the post makes sense.
Zinoviev A.A., Yawning heights / Collected works in 10 volumes, Volume 1, M., "Tsentrpoligraf", 2000, p. 42-45.