This seems analogous to descriptivism vs expressivism.
It illustrates what we lose when we reduce all discourse to descriptive discourse. When we choose our definitions such that natural laws are facts in the world, just like any other ordinary empirical fact, we lose both:
Their role in reasoning
A story for our knowledge/justification of them.
The story shows how treating a rule as a fact strips it of its normative force. It is the problem of conflating description in the narrow sense with description in the wider sense: see here.
The last line of this commentary makes me think this can also be used to counter some forms of radical skepticism, i.e. to recover an air of dignity to making working assumptions.