Self-study
Lecturer: Given our current state of knowledge and technology, Support we can say that the generalization that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease for any spontaneous process has not been falsified by any of our tests of that generalization. ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ████████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██████████████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ██████████ █████████████ ████ ██████████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████████
Summary
While it hasn’t been tested in every possible setting, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has not been proven false by any tests possible with our current technology. It is therefore rightly considered to be a scientific law.
Notable Assumptions
The argument’s conclusion makes a claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correctly regarded as a scientific law, but the premises don’t tell us anything about what is required for something to be a scientific law. The premises instead only tell us that current technology can’t prove that the law is false, so we conclude it is universally true. We therefore need some principle that explains the connection - that connects the fact that it has not been falsified by our current knowledge to the claim that is a scientific law.
2.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████████ ██████
a
Whatever is a ██████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████████
This doesn’t explain why the Second Law is a scientific law. It provides a necessary condition for being a scientific law, and we do know that the Second Law meets that necessary connection. It does not provide a sufficient condition, however, and doesn’t give us any further reason to believe that the Second Law is a scientific law.
b
If a generalization ██ █████████ ████ █████ █ ███ ██████████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ █ ██████████ ████
Leads to the wrong conclusion. If anything, this would suggest that because the Second Law hasn’t been tested in every circumstance, it shouldn’t be seen as a scientific law.
c
Whatever is true ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████
This doesn’t provide any information supporting the conclusion that the Second Law is a scientific law - it doesn’t tell us anything about scientific laws at all.
d
If a generalization ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ █ ██████████ ████
This fills the gap in the argument and explains why the Second Law ought to be considered a scientific law - current science has not been able to falsify it.
e
Whatever is regarded ██ █ ██████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ █████████
Wrong trigger. Nothing in the argument discusses whether or not the Second Law will ever be conclusively verified - it’s only about the fact that it has not yet been conclusively verified.