>From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd put this into my own words, except that I've only got about 5
>minutes, and I'd mess it up entirely (probably even if I had all evening).
>This is a far more complicated question ("What is a scientific law?") than
>you'd think it would be.
> I'd put this into my own words, except that I've only got about 5
>minutes, and I'd mess it up entirely (probably even if I had all evening).
>This is a far more complicated question ("What is a scientific law?") than
>you'd think it would be.
As I was taught, a Law is a description of a function, a relation between two or more phenomena, that holds true 100% of the time. A law must be represented mathematically so that various values can be entered and produce precise mathematical predictions.
As I asked Paul, why isn't it Premack's Law instead of Premack's principle?
I remember Dick Herrnstein talking to me about his early days at Harvard. Whatever interesting data he presented to the senior faculty, their reply was invariably, "Show us a function". Ironically, it motivated him to discover the Matching Law.
>
>Rip Pisacreta, Ph.D.
>Professor, Psychology,
>Ferris State University
>Big Rapids, MI 49307
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _____
>
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>Rip Pisacreta, Ph.D.
>Professor, Psychology,
>Ferris State University
>Big Rapids, MI 49307
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _____
>
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
