When we study the science, we encounter all kinds of Law. Sometime they surface with terms like Hypothesis, Postulate, Theory, Principle, Rule etc. In math we learn Axiom, Theorem, Lemma, Corollary and many others. In general, the definition of the terms is more rigorous in math. But in our daily life, the definition of Law has been abused often especially in the last 40 years. Have you heard about Murphy’s Law, Moore’s Law & Pareto’s Principle? Or Peter Principle, Parkinson’s Law, Count to Three Principle? If we examine these laws or principles closely, we find that they are far from laws. They are qualified at best as Adages, Rule or Guidelines. They can’t be proved rigorously & you can always find exceptions to the laws. They can’t even be qualified as hypotheses or postulates. They are just Rule of Thumbs. Let’s examine some of them. But before we dig in, let’s examine the definition of the terms & do some translations.
Theory: the principle on which a particular subject is based, 學說 (理論)
Theorem: a rule, especially in mathematics, that can be proved to be true, 定理
Corollary: an idea, or fact that results directly from a theory, 結論 (必然的結果)
Lemma: a proven statement used as a stepping-stone toward the proof of another statement, 引理 (輔助定理)
Law: a scientific rule that somebody has stated to explain a natural process, 定律
Principle: a law or a theory that something is based on, 原理 (法則,原則)
Hypothesis: an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct, 假說
Postulate: a statement that is accepted as true, that forms the basis of a theory, 假定 (假設)
Rule: a statement of what is possible according to a particular system, 規則
Rule of Thumb: 經驗法則
Guideline: rules or instructions that are given on how to do something, especially something difficult, 準則 (指導方針)
Adage: a well-known phrase expressing a general truth about people or the world, 格言 (諺語)
Murphy’s Law
"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Is this really true? No is the answer. It is almost true that given enough time & enough tries, it will happen. It is like saying, “I buy lotto & I will hit it eventually” or “I walk outside very often & eventually I will be killed by a thunder." So Murphy is not a law, it is just a Rule or Adage.
Moore’s Law
"The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years." This one has been modified to 18 months instead of 2 years. Actually, the original one was one year, not two years. Now we know how accurate this one predicts. It is not a law, it can best be qualified as empirical formula.
Parkinson's law
"Work will always take as long as the time available for it." This one tries to explain or describes some human behavior. In many cases, it is true. But alas, it is not always true. Some difficult task can not be finished if there is not enough time allocated. This one can be used as a guideline for any project. This is especially true for annual tax return. Why? There are so many procrastinators that try to meet the deadline. You give them the deadline, so they just try to meet it. But it is also true that thousands of people sent their return well before 4/15 every year. Why? They just try to get the refund as soon as possible.
Pareto’s Principle
"The Pareto principle also known as the 80-20 rule, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes." It is equivalent to state, 20% of the effects come from 80% of the causes. Here the cause & effect are independent, they don’t need to add up to 100%. For example, 15% of people pay 90% of the tax in California. The interesting part of this so-called principle is the number 80 & 20, why not 30 & 70? Anyway, this is another way to explain some human behavior. You can hardly find any natural phenomena fit in this scheme. This one is best qualified as a rule applied to the area of human activities, but it is far from a Principle. The corollary of this rule is that 64 % of the effects come from 4% of the causes. Is it true or is it a fantasy?
Peter Principle
"In a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently." Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent, and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. The corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" or "Work is accomplished by those employees who are not competent." No wonder our world is a mess since the world is functioned in an incompetent way. This is another rule to explain the structure of our society or our economic system. Is it a principle? I don't think so. At best it is qualified as a low end of Principle. But it is not in the same league as Uncertainly Principle.
Most of these laws are from the management circle of business world. They are not thinking rigorously, rather very loosely. Like “Invisible hand (冥冥中有一隻不可目見之手)” & "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", they lead to the chaos in the world of finance, economy, wall street & business world. It destroys so many lives & creates some monster banks too big to fail. The taxpayers end up holding the bag.
PS0: Count-to-Three Principle: If you don't know at least three ways to abuse a tool, you don't know how to use it.
PS1: 說, 論 & 經: 這三個字,堂而皇之. But they have been abused badly too. We have many examples (some of them are not qualified as called):
粒子說,波動說,波粒說,原子說,孔子說,聽說,細說,好說,胡說,佛說,併吞說,媽媽說,總統說,道聽途說
群論,民約論,人口論,國富論,资本論,重商論,相對論,量子論,君王論,進化論,演化論,唯心論,唯物論,海杈論,不服從論,边際效用論,天体運行論, 血液循環論
人論,典論,違心論,股市崩盤論,小金投資論,大乘起信論,命理預言論,興趣無用論,正統無視論,高談闊論
佛經,聖經,拜撲經,可蘭經,道德經,詩經,樂經,易經,水經,山海經,三字經,媽媽經,罗織經,月經,日經,神經
