This is a common question, and a common misconception. Unfortunately, most people are taught a hierarchy of certainty: hypothesis becomes theory and then, with more support, a theory becomes law. This is WRONG. Laws and theories serve different purposes and each have a unique nature.
The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this: * Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. Laws describe. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory. * Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law. William McComus lists gravity as a modern example of a well-established law for which no really satisfying theory is available. We can use the Law of Gravity, and even correct it for the effects of relativity (General Relativity), but we don't have any consensus notion of howit functions! Is it geometry or gravitons? Oddly enough, I searched the MadSci site and came up with a carefully- written wrong answer along the hierarchical lines you describe above. Embarassingly, several answers I summoned in my search fall into the misconceptions and traps enumerated by McComus! We shouldn't blame our experts; as you and I have seen from our own experience, scientists may have fuzzy notions about this sort of distinction because they don't normally have to make the distinction! A working scientists doesn't tend to worry about whether the First Law of Thermodynamics is an explanation, or the Theory of Evolution a statement of observed facts. They work, she uses them, everything's fine, right? But as McComus points out, the cut-and-dried (wrong) way this is usually presented can be pretty deadly, pedagogically. I am unable to recommend much specific for further reading, although McComus' bibliography looks to be a good place to start. You might try Richard Feynman's distinctly practical take on this problem, The Nature of Physical Law.
laws have been proven, theories are just ideas and have not been proven
A scientific theory explains a phenomenon based on evidence and can evolve with new data, while a scientific law describes a consistent pattern in nature without explaining the underlying mechanism. Theories are more flexible and subject to change, while laws are generally considered to be universally true under specific conditions.
Staphylococcus is Gram-positive, forming clusters, while Streptococcus is also Gram-positive but forms chains or pairs. This difference in cell arrangement can help distinguish between the two genera based on Gram staining characteristics.
The cell theory states that all living organisms are composed of cells, while the organism theory suggests that cells are the building blocks of living organisms. In essence, the cell theory focuses on the fundamental unit of life being the cell, whereas the organism theory looks at how cells come together to form complete organisms.
The minimum time interval between two sounds for the human ear to distinguish them is about 10-20 milliseconds. This is known as the temporal resolution of the auditory system.
Fossil records, anatomical similarities, embryological development, and genetic similarities are all forms of evidence that support the theory of evolution. These pieces of evidence show the gradual changes in species over time and provide support for the idea that all organisms are related through common ancestry.
The theory of evolution by natural selection has been one of the most extensively tested theories in science. It has been supported by a vast array of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy. Additionally, the theory has been able to make accurate predictions about the natural world, further confirming its validity.
A theory is consistent and has known experiment results, but is often refined as new knowledge is found. A law is a mathematical relationship which has been found to be consistently true.
By not doing nothing
By not doing nothing
By not doing nothing
aariz wasim
Distinguish between a public law relationship and a private law relationship.
They're the same thing, but (usually) the "law" has an equation associated with it, while the "theory" is just a (verbal) discription.
A scientific theory is accepted as factual even though it hasn't been proven. A scientific law has been proven as fact.
command of sovereign sanctioned by punishments is law by imperative theory and law as legal science of norms is by pure theory of law.
a law is something that is true and a theory is an opinion or thought that can be proven wrong.
law is based on fact theory is a concept/idea
law is based on fact theory is a concept/idea