Talk:Cosmology

Laws of science or laws of nature?

I was listening to the audio version of this article and noticed the article says early on (in the lead)

In the science of astronomy, physical cosmology is concerned with the study of the chronology of the universe, the observable universe's origin, its large-scale structures and dynamics, and the ultimate fate of the universe, including the laws of science that govern these areas.

However, that seems inaccurate – it's not the 'laws of science' – such as maybe publish or perish or peer review – that cosmology is studying but laws of nature (or natural laws or physical laws). I understand that this part is wikilinked to Scientific law which is defined in that article as Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.. Nevertheless, I think this is inappropriate if not incorrect terminology in the term and possibly confusing or misleading to some or many readers.

Natural law is not what I mean though (laws of nature) – it's defined on that page as a philosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles that are discoverable through reason.

The wikilink target is correct but the titular description here is somewhat misleading. Could it be replaced with laws of the universe (same wikilink target) – so …including the laws of the universe that govern these areas – or laws of nature that govern these areas or does somebody have another suggestion? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me you need to start with the article laws of science and come armed with sources showing that this is not the correct name.

Personally I've never heard the "laws of science" as anything other than what that article claims. As far as I know, 'publish or perish' is not described as a law but if you have a source that says otherwise, that would help. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood the point I was making. Laws Of Science suggests or implies that these are Laws That Govern Science. I was not saying the two examples are cases thereof but illustrating what rules that govern science would be like. That doesn't require anybody to call these laws of science. It's a misnomer or at least should be clearer.

It's not laws that govern science, it's laws governing nature that are found through and studied with science.

This is an important difference. I may make a talk page post about the article title at the linked article at another time. But we're discussing here and one can easily just wikilink the redirect or like with the other redirect.

I haven't looked long but here peer review is called a law of science if that helps you understand or better appreciate the point I was making. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The link you give supports the claim that "law of science" is used correctly:

• It was sprinkled with suspect elements, not the least of which was a set of results that violated known laws of science.

Johnjbarton (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

My bad, sorry – here's some correct links

• What are the rules of science? — Although there is no official booklet listing the laws of science, science does have some basic rules. The number one (unwritten) rule of scientific work is that scientific knowledge needs to be built on arguments and proofs and not on beliefs or authority https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR22191.pdf
• Scientific principles are more commonly known as the “laws” of science. I fully agree with the compiler in preferring the word principles.
• All the (non-economic) rules of copyright that would retain their relevance in a future world of science (also) form part of the unwritten laws of science and are effectively protected by the “right to science”

I mean I understand how the presence or absence of such sources makes what I say weaker or stronger but it's not about this. It's about putting clear terminology in the lead. Laws of nature are studied by science; cosmology is about the Universe as a whole and the laws of nature that govern/shape/… it. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree with your point of view. A phrase like "Laws of nature are studied by science" implies a particular philosophy, one where "nature" has "laws". Scientific laws are observational summaries, without the assumption that "nature" obeys or contains some rules awaiting discovery. Science succeeds without such assumptions.

Again, you should take this argument to Talk:Scientific law.

In any case I changed the intro because " physical cosmology" ... "physical laws" is a better sentence with the same meaning. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Religion 100 Introduction to Religion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WaVge (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HappyAppleDragon.

— Assignment last updated by Tongbb (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally modern "cosmology" refers to the scientific disciple. I think more appropriate additions of religion content be in Religious cosmology or in the article Cosmogony. I think we are missing a summary of Religious cosmology in cosmogony in fact. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)