Laws describe, and theories explain.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not feelings. Theory is also the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That’s not how it works. In science, they collect facts, or observations, they use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. Scientist don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. NOW, I remembered what Robert W. Cox said about theory in social science, Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. Very skeptics. He added about critical theory that does not propound remedies or make predictions about the emerging shape of things, world order for example. It attempts rather, by analysis of forces and trends, to discern possible futures and to point to the conflicts and contradictions in the existing world order that could move things towards one or other of the possible futures. In that sense it can be a guide for political choice and action.
What do you think? I think this is the way laws finally can take a place, as political choice and action. And the characteristics, as well as theories, laws is something that maybe needs proof, not only a guess, a hunch, or fiction. No wondering if some of legal experts said that law actually is tool of social engineering. True.
Aha!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar