Starr states,
>While science necessarily assumes that the natural world is intelligible, there is an interesting distinction between those survey responses that suggest that order is intrinsic to the natural world, and those survey responses that suggest that order derives from human engagement with the natural world.

and
>And Victor Stenger argues that ‘the laws of physics were not handed down from above, nor are they built into the logical structure of the universe - they are human inventions’.

This sounds like Victor Stenger is saying that the universe is not ordered, that universal laws are arbitrary human inventions with no connection to an external, objective universe. But that is not what Stenger is saying.

>I should teach the world that the laws of physics were not handed down from above, nor are they somehow built into the logical structure of the universe - they are human inventions, although not arbitrary ones, because they must agree with observations.

>The laws of physics are not restrictions upon the behaviour of matter, but restrictions upon the way physicists may describe that behaviour. In order to describe an objective reality, these descriptions cannot depend upon the point of view of observers - they must be point-of-view invariant. When point-of-view invariance is implemented, the universal laws of physics follow, with few additional assumptions.

[bolding in original]

In other words, Stenger agrees with the other respondents that there is an objective “real” world out there. His point is that our descriptions of that behavior we codify into “physical laws”. They are our attempts to describe that behavior, and as such are not handed down from on high, but invented by humans to summarize our understanding and convey meaning to each other.

Starr seems to have missed the distinction, and thus I think he misrepresents the cummulative message of the respondents.

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA9D7.htm
———-
>…you must understand the scientific method - how science proceeds from theory to law.

>Any formula is only as valid as the assumptions upon which it is based, and the theory of relativity is no exception. This theory is a logical mathematical extrapolation, from fundamental assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid. It is not Einstein’s law of relativity, it is his theory of relativity. And it remains a theory to this day.

No, he is incorrect, and spreading misinformation. Theories do not become scientific laws. The two are fundamentally different items.

A Scientific Law, sometimes called a Principle, is a description of behavior. It is not like a social law, that describes how people should behave. Rather, it is a description of how things have been observed to behave. Laws can be hypotheses - guesses, starting points, predictions of behavior, first attempts at describing the results. They are then tested, and through testing either verified to be accurate or shown to be flawed or wrong. They can then be modified or rejected as warranted by the evaluation. Laws are also based upon assumptions and initial conditions. They are only valid in cases where those assumptions and initial conditions are valid. Consider the Ideal Gas Law - it is a description of the cummulative behavior of gases in response to varying volume, temperature, and pressure. However, the underlying assumption is that you are working with an Ideal Gas, which is a certain set of conditions. Most gases are close to Ideal Gases, but you have to be sure that those conditions are valid. Ideal Gas Law doesn’t work for water, for instance.

A Scientific Theory is a completely different animal (to use a metaphor). A theory is an explanation. It is not a description of behavior, but an attempt to understand that description. Theories start as hypotheses as well, hypothetical theories, as opposed to hypothetical laws. A theory is also tested by comparing results of tests, but the test may not rely on any particular scientific law of behavior being invalidated. Theories are composite structures made up of numerous laws, tied together in a framework that helps show them to be consistent and interrelated.

Laws are the piece-parts, theories are the assemblies. You need valid piece-parts or the assembly may not work, but the assembly can hold together weak piece-parts and may partially function until the working piece-parts can be found. Consider a car. The car may have a hard time driving if the fuel pump is shoddy. On the other hand, a spent fuel pump does not mean the steering system won’t work. You don’t throw out the whole car, you replace the fuel-pump.

Timothy Ball has some valid comments relating to the role of testing theories. He may even be valid concerning Global Warming as a topic. (Let’s not argue that here, please.) But he is wrong when is asserts that theories progress to laws after they are proven.

Of course, you meant to say “really well”…

Do you have any other goodies for us?