Depends on how you define rule, doesn't it? Every definition of 'rule'
I've read suggests that a rule can be broken, or violated. But every
substance that is boilable will always boil at a specific temperature and
pressure everytime, no joking around, no non-violent resistance, no
insurgency. So boiling isn't a rule, it's an inexorable and ineluctible
characateristic of a substance. But I think we all know what Phil meant. I
would argue against the proposition that the First Law of Thermodynamics is
a rule. I'd say it was a description of a process. I'd say a rule is a
"thou shalt not."
Mike Geary Memphis
"Boiling point is not a rule. It is a measured standardized ..."
Phil: In other words, a rule.
Eric: I think you are wrong here. How do you define fact in relation to rule? I can't see the sense in which "boiling point" is considered a "rule."
Boiling point doesn't sound like a "principle" to me. In other words, the boiling point of a substance is NOT:
(a) a principle that governs the behavior of a substance; it is the reflection of a substance's molecular composition,
(b) a generalization that serves as the basis for further reasoning like "the rule of conservation of mass"
(c) a guide for induction or for governing individual behavior
Boiling point is a "temperature" not an equation like F=ma .
Maybe Paul, Teemu, or someone more scientifically inclined could address this.
Boiling point, it seems to me, is not a rule . At least boiling point is not a rule in the sense that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
