Rezwan;
Your equivalence of “generalization” and “law” doesn’t reflect how the term “scientific law” is used, except by those who are thoroughly immersed in scientific usage and terminology. It is, in fact, used by all others to refer to something (they consider to be) fixed, known as a certainty, having no restrictions or qualifications.
Did you note the article’s (well-deserved) slam on government-funded science? It’s always for a purpose–the politicians’ purpose(s). Which is/are very unlikely, despite any and all assurances, to be the same as the researchers’.
Piper-payers never give up the right to call the tune.
