Is the Inverse Square Law Really a Law or a Theory?

[MinnesotaState]

One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Well Newton's 1st Law doesn't satisfy why but how about the inverse sq law? Can't you logically deduce that? If so, that's satisfying why

So according to the italicized, the inverse square law should NOT be a law because it (also) explains why

Take it with a grain of salt?

OR

It's not fair of me to state there's an inverse relationship between intensity and area because no matter how logical it sounds, the greater the area doesn't necessarily mean the lesser the intensity. Well maybe it does, but that doesn't exactly mean it's the cause. It could be for other unknown reasons beyond reality's boundaries.

So, rather there's an inverse relationship between what we define as intensity & what we define as area for God knows why.

^There, that doesn't explain why

 

[Zefram]

, it just states a relationship between two defined quantities

I would respond to this forum post by explaining the difference between a law and a theory and how they are both important in scientific understanding.

A scientific law is a statement that describes a natural phenomenon and has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. It does not explain why the phenomenon occurs, but it accurately describes how it behaves. For example, Newton's first law of motion states that an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. This law has been observed and confirmed countless times, but it does not explain why objects behave this way.

On the other hand, a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation for a natural phenomenon. It goes beyond just describing the phenomenon and provides an explanation for why it occurs. Theories are based on evidence and can be modified or replaced if new evidence is discovered. For example, the theory of evolution explains how species change over time through natural selection.

In the context of the forum post, the inverse square law is a law because it accurately describes the relationship between intensity and area. It has been confirmed through experimentation and observation. However, it does not explain why this relationship exists. The explanation for why this law holds true would fall under a theory, such as the theory of electromagnetism.

It is important to note that laws and theories are not in competition with each other. They serve different purposes in scientific understanding and both are valuable in the pursuit of knowledge. So, it is not fair to dismiss the inverse square law as not being a law just because it can also provide an explanation for why it occurs.

In conclusion, asking "why" is important in science, but it is also important to recognize the difference between a law and a theory. Both play important roles in understanding the natural world, and it is essential for scientists to continue questioning and seeking explanations for natural phenomena.