Theory/law, labels and correctness

People say "labelling is wrong". Labelling is necessary and terms like "law" and "theory" are examples of labels.

Prior to Einsteins theory of relativity people called what are now called theories, laws. Newtons Laws were like that. New information came along and those "laws" were not laws at all.

This is a hangover from the middle ages when our current language meanings were largely formed and the church had such an influence that physics was known as "Gods laws of the universe", impenatrable and forever. Einstein made it a matter of rote for everyone that follows to use "theory" in place of "law". New data could come later and this allows for that possibility. This is why quantum theory is a theory and not a law, why the theory of descriptions is a theory and not a law of logic.

It is proper to identify what was labelled as a law prior to Einstein, as a law today. It is improper to cite them as "theories". So if I talk about the law of identity in logic, it is with the presumption of "so far as we know now", and if you label it the "theory of identity" (which would be more correct) you won't find any authors on that topic except yourself. So it is proper to still call them laws when they aren't by todays definition. This is an understanding that comes with exposure to the reading material and what people need to understand on their own when crossing "laws" of science or logic.

So Phred is right technically that there are no such laws, however it is proper to identify them as such. One example is the law of causality. There is "such a thing", it is the understanding that there needs to be a cause for any event. The label applied is due to it being accredited before scientists and logicians labelled their models theory instead of law. And that is merely the acceptence that new data could come in the future. For people meaning to accurately represent these ideas, the label "law" or "theory" is merely an acedemic one of chronological nature. Was it prior to the 20th century? It's probably a "law" by label only. If that same law was written post 20th century it would have labelled a theory.

Darwin labelled his work a theory and could arguably be said to be ahead of Einstein on this. My point is that Einstein drove home the message and it was accepted after that by everyone within the field. And other fields. Freud labelled his work theory and so on.

-------------

As an aside to Phred:

Phred: However, we see virtual particles popping in and out of existence. They need no cause and have no cause.

Phred: Spontaneous generation is a falsified theory from more than one hundred years ago.

How do you not see this as contradictory?

Greg