User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar)/Group 1/Truth/Laws & Physics

I would argue that physics as a discipline is relatively more objective than law, due to it being a natural sciences discipline and basing its findings on experimental data rather than human judgement, however I don't think its any less "constructed". The "facts" within physics are only valid during that time and space. For example, the smallest unit of matter was thought to be atoms, and that was accepted as a "fact", however later, protons, electrons, neutrons and even quarks were discovered which replaced the "fact" about atoms. Moreover, it could be argued that physics consist of models that can evolve over time, as it was with Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity. Also, mathematics is just a constructed model that is used to understand and solve physics problems. So, I would argue that although physics use experimental and scientific methods to construct its facts for that specific time and space, every model in physics is just an approximation that is accepted by scholars.Zbaykam (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)