I agree that “Laws” are descriptions. I think it boils down to, we don’t ‘know’ anything we simply assume.
The purpose of a rule is to make or recognize something as regular, or predictable for us as humans. (We even extend this to the physical world, other humans and to ourselves. To the extent that we even use various substances to make our bowel movements “regular”) http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/l-ljv90vkqy8nfa4.jpg
regular and rule share similar latin origin
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rule&searchmode=none
The Paradigm shift surrounding the study of chaos and complexity is shifting to where we acknowledge that the world is not as deterministic as we would like. This is something that I’ve recently started getting into so I cant really say much.
So can Laws or rules be “a description of a pattern which X person observed”, given that they are generally linked to the person who discovered them. Generally waiting around until someone else comes around with a more effective description.
You might find the concept of languaculture interesting. It was devised by an Anthropologist by the name of Micheal Agar.