What scientific laws or theories have been proven wrong?
These are a few scientific theories - most of which differ from modern theories in that they were philosophy- or religion-based ideas, with little real evidence, rather than scientific experiment and thought - that have been proved wrong throughout history.
- Flat Earth hypothesis. NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY (DOGMA) Disproved by Eratosthenes around 200 BC
- Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds. Disproved by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier 1780
- Geocentric theory of the solar system. NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY (DOGMA) Disproved by Nicolas Copernicus around 1500 AD
- The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
- Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo around 1600
- Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. hypothesis, never a THEORY. Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment 1887
- Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it. I want to give credit for this one to Louis de Broglie 1929
- Newtons Laws of Motion. Still highly respected and ubiquitously used they were 'improved upon' by the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein 1940
- Spontaneous Generation That living things were spontaneously created from other biological material, as bee from flowers or flies from decaying flesh. Disproved by Francesco Redi 1668.
- Lamarckian Evolution That the phenotype of living thing was determined by their exertions during life. Displace by Natural Selection, George Wallace and Charles Darwin around 1800
- The Age of the Earth as calculated by Lord Kelvin. Corrected by Ernest Rutherford with the discovery of radioactive decay around 1930
- Ideal Gas Law. Never regarded as a true law as no gas ever behaved ideally. A working standard only. Invented with the understanding of its limited use. Emile Clapeyron 1834
46 people found this useful
Opinions on this question vary from 'Yes, many times' to 'No, theBible has never been proven wrong'. Below are some of the opinionsexpressed by our contributors: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It depends on how one defines "proven." For some people anycontenti…on from anyone who disagrees or even hates the Bibleconstitutes proof. For something to be proven it would need to be fairly andimpartially examined, in its proper context, and then compared withknown facts. What often happens is that people do not considereither the context, or the message, or the facts which allegedlyprove the Bible wrong. What is evident is that they have alreadydecided the Bible to be wrong before they have even begun. That isa personal belief and is not proof, except to those people. When one looks at the Bible in its context, including anunderstanding of the limitations of translating an ancient languagewith its vocabulary limitations and thought patterns into modernEnglish with its vocabulary and thought patterns the task becomessomewhat more complex. What is clear in even beginning this is thatmany allegedly proven errors are merely ignorance ormisunderstanding which a skeptical reader has not bothered toinvestigate fully. Examples of this kind of thing abound, especially of people noteven reading what the Bible itself says and then alleging it is inerror. One such example follows: * God promised many times that he would drive out all theinhabitants of the lands they encountered. But these verses showthat God failed to keep his promise since he was unable to driveout the Canaanites. 1:21', Judges 27-30 All of the promises mentioned above are conditional' upon theobedience of the Israelites. It is also clearly promised that ifthe Israelites do not obey, then they will not be able to drive outthe inhabitants. This is precisely what happened. The Israelitesdid not obey and so the inhabitants could not be driven out. What this passage and the history of Israel proves is that God'sword is completely reliable and trustworthy. It also demonstratesprinciples of obedience and that God means what He says.Disobedience has consequences. It did for the Israelites and itdoes for those who come after, down to this present day. Thus, this particular example, rather than proving the Bible wrong,actually proves it to be accurate, as do many other alleged errors,when rightly understood. Regarding the following alleged error: * The sun also ariseth" Although this verse is interpreted figuratively today, it wastaken literally by virtually all Christians until the Copernicanrevolution, and was used by the Church to condemn Galileo forteaching the heliocentric heresy. Ecclesiaistes 1:5'' The 'language of appearance' is also used even today when we talkabout sunrise and sunset. Secondly, the evidence that this verse was taken literally is notaccurate. Some scholars have contended that the majority view andknowledge was of a circular earth. Thirdly, the condemnation of Galileo was a complex personal andchurch-political issue as many intelligent examinations of thecontroversy show. That some people in the Roman Catholic churchwrongly understood this scripture and others does not make theBible wrong. It makes both their theology, and their astronomywrong. Opinion Yes, it is inaccurate. The Bible contains many known and accepted inaccuracies. However,those who defend the Bible and their beliefs would rather ignorethese, and rather focus their attention on those parts of the Biblethat appear to be correct or cannot be disproved. Another Answer from our community: There are numerous fallacies in the Bible. Probably the mostconclusive one in my mind is that, according to most literalistdenominations, the human race is descended from Adam and Eve andwho were created by God roughly 6000 years ago. In the past few years, science has made phenomenal leaps in theresearch of the human genome. One of the revelations has been thatour gene sequence has been mapped to a common ancestor, or a termed"mitochondrial Eve" (please note that this is not the Eve describedin the bible, nor did she spring out of nowhere, this is simply thefirst hominid recognizable as homo sapien). This "Eve" has beenmapped to have existed roughly 150,000 years ago, probably in EastAfrica in the region of Tanzania. There are numerous studies onthis and related subjects in scientific journals around the world. I recommend you start with books by Richard Dawkins. His works areentertaining and will broaden your ability to think about life andthe world around you. Another Answer * No,the Bible is never wrong because it is inspired by GOD andbecause it mentionned a lot of facts before even being proved bythe science and as an example:the Bible proven that the earth isround before even being proved by the science. ( Full Answer )
The short answer is that the Scientific community is on the fence when it comes to any Paranormal object, be it a ghost or otherwise. However, where once it was considered "fringe science", the serious investigation of Paranormal activity is now being pursued by many top Universities and Colleges, u…sing scientific methodology and equipment. As we learn more, and more people with scientific backgrounds become involved, more theories on how ghosts manifest or where they exist will be proposed. Remember that Einstein's Theory of Relativity postulates an infinite number of alternate realities and many other things that most people don't believe in either - but are universally accepted by the scientific community, largely in part because many elements of his theory have been proven to be correct by scientific experiment. Unknowledgeable people presenting bogus information as "evidence" has been a large problem for many people, as is just their own core beliefs, faith, or unwillingness to face the possibility that there's something other than Heaven or Hell. This was the problem in the past, and continues to be to this day. Groups claiming to be "Ghost Hunters" (unlike the TAPS group, which is a serious team) often put forth pictures and other "evidence" that is unclear and unverifiable at best. Few of these people have any real technical or scientific background, and each time it happens it creates even more skepticism. Even worse are the persistent hoaxers, and it's a lot easier today with moderate software to create effects that look good without closer inspection. I myself have analyzed purported EVP recordings which on the surface sounded real, but upon closer inspection were obviously faked. Same with pictures that are reported in the media; we looked at one case (myself and another Photoshop expert) where a picture was highly publicized at a local TV station. Upon close inspection, it was evident that the image was faked, albeit a very good one. Other things didn't add up as well in the entire story, and on the whole, it seemed more likely to be a ratings gimmick by the TV station as the reporter was present for the "photo". Scientists, professional and amateur investigators, and just everyday people who have witnessed and seen ghosts are believers, but universal belief is based on evidence, and even with photographic, video and audio evidence, many people aren't yet willing to universally accept that ghosts exist. As one who has seen them, with evidence collected, I of course have no doubt, and it has caused me to rethink many things of a spiritual nature. There is a lot of evidence that tips the scale toward the existence of ghosts than there is to disprove they do. By evidence, I mean that which cannot be explained by any other cause. I have no doubt that science will ultimately come to the realization of the existence of ghosts. Remember that science has often sworn that ancient species are extinct, only to be proven wrong when a specimen was found. The Coelacanth is a prime example of why no one should ever discount the possibility of something not being provable. Science long held the Coelacanth was extinct millions of years ago - only to be slammed when a live specimen was caught several decades ago. We often consider ourselves smarter than we really are, and science, though often right, isn't always correct by a longshot. In the end, seeing is believing, and for anyone who has ever witnessed any type of entity, be it active or residual (a "recording" of an event that repeats and cannot interact with the viewer), there is no question of their existence. Remember too that even if science does prove their existence, not everyone will believe it either. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat, that we've never been to the Moon, and that the U.S. Navy supports an underwater alien base in the Bahamas. I can't tell you what the base is for in the Bahamas, but I've been there many times. I can say there isn't anything extraterrestrial going on, and like most highly classified military installations, activity there is kept secret for very good reasons, none of which has to do with aliens. My advice is to do what many of us have done - start your own journey to determine for yourself if they exist or not, and keep an open mind when doing so. In the end, what YOU believe is really all that matters. ( Full Answer )
\n . \n . It is much easier to prove a theory wrong than right in most cases. As soon as evidence is found that does not fit the theory, it is effectively proved wrong. It is extremely rare that evidence is found that conclusively proves that a theory is correct.
Answer . Anything can be proven wrong in the future, but if there is a measurable dimension that supports a theory, that theory would be considered probable until proven wrong (which happens a lot)
The earth is flat, when it is actually round,,,,. flat can also beround lay a coin flat and it can be round. the spinning oblatespheroid model is badly flawed under natural laws within scienceand psychics. fluid dynamics will explain. uncontained water willflow and seek level. bodies of contained wa…ter undisturbed willhave a level surface. bodies of water could never stick uncontainedto the exterior of a spinning oblate spheroid. there is noobservable measurable curve to be measured according to the 8"permile squared, fish eye lenses on go pro cameras can give thisimpression but have been proven wrong. Newton's Laws of motion is also flawed dayton miller interferometerexperiments proved motionless plane ( Full Answer )
A scientific theory cannot be proven correct because there is noway to look into the future and find out if the theory is everrevised. Theories tend to change greatly as new discoveries aremade.
There's still debate on it. It's accepted in the same vain as the Big Band. There's no concrete proof but it's a popular theory.
Today we know that atoms can be destroyed to nuclear reactions but not by chemical reactions.
yes. In many cases voodoo is wrong. Some people say if you believe hard enough in it, it works. Other people think its 100% pointless and doesn't work. Take your pick
All the time. Science is the act of questioning everything, including what you already think you know.
Scientists use Dalton's atomic theory even though parts of it havebeen proven wrong as the basis of other discoveries. His theoryabout atomic elements being the same was wrong but has been usedfor a long time even to the discovery of isotopes.
The Ptolemaic theory (geocentric) put forth by Claudius Ptolemy(100-170 AD) was based partly on the work of Aristotle. It wasreplaced by the Copernican theory (heliocentric) beginning around1400 AD.
-it is not a law, because more things about the cell can be discovered , within time..This is because new technological objects can be invented (such as the microscope) that can change the understundig of what we think a cell is. -" Laws don't rely on complex external proofs " so it is not just l…ooking very carefully, it has to explain why or how this happens. -Another statement is that there are some other theories that contradict this . this is just a very good point of view. it is not nessesarely 100% correct. ( Full Answer )
A scientific law can be reduced to facts and formulas that areundeniably basic and apply universally. Theories are more broadexplanations of what happens and why. They can still be provenwrong and have not been proven right.
Scientific law cannot be experimentally disproven.. Scientific theory is required to be challenged, to attempt to be disproven. There are no laws in science, only theories..
A theory is not just a hypothesis that has been proven true. 1) A hypothesis in science is merely a conjecture put forth to provide a basis for further debate and to conceive research and experiments. It is a working guess, not an untested theory. 2) A theory is a comprehensive set of explanatio…ns for known phenomena. It must make testable predictions that can be confirmed or reputed. 3) When you make explanations without testable predictions, it is called philosophy. To sneer "That is just a theory" is to misunderstand just how much effort goes into producing a testable theory. So the answer is No. ( Full Answer )
\nYes ... in theory.\n. \nScientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, that is, not absolutely certain.\n. \nHowever, it is very, very rare for a well established scientific theory to be completely overturned. Ordinarily theories are refined by correcting small errors, or by filling in m…issing parts.\n. \nRelativity 'superceded' Newtonian Physics, but it did not replace it or find it wrong. Rather it extended it into new realms, and provided a new basis for Gravity (among other things).\n. \nSee the entry for "Theory" in Wikipedia for more.\n. \n(And always remember, the meaning of "theory" in science is not the same as the meaning in ordinary language, where theory is often used to mean "hypothesis". In science, "Theory" means a well established body of laws and facts.) ( Full Answer )
Fequently this is a matter of tradition. Law's which have been bettered such as Newton's Law of motion are not renamed and theories which are proven are similarly not renamed.
It is law, definitely not theory . I would say it is a Theory. We don't know the exact effects of gravity everywhere and how it effects everything. . We only have a loose general idea on how gravity works, and interacts with the universe and our surroundings. . Laws should not only be testabl…e, but they should be constant, and have great scientific explanation and understanding. . If I drop a leaf from a certain distance based on many factors it may or may not hit the floor at the same time. That's cause of the air currents. . Or if I have magnetics repelling something upwards, it would defy gravity. . If you were on the moon or another planet, the way how gravity affects you would be different. . So the idea that gravity is a constant can be under scrutiny, because the tests can have different but similar results. . Due to our lack of understanding on what the rate of gravity would be like if we were on Jupiter, Mars, the Moon. We cannot calculate the exact speed of gravity for every body of mass. . So far now we have a unifying theory. That is a good general idea on how gravity works, but we do not have the knowledge or ability to calculate all the exact details on how it works. . When we can determine the rate of gravitation for each atom or particle, that's when we can call it a law. . ( Full Answer )
Telepathy is not natural possible. Telepathy is only possibleunless a person is under the influence of demons. Let me explain tohow that works. Demons can't minds but they can transfer someoneelse thoughts to you and y'all pick them.
A: It has been scientifically proven false. The astronomy is all wrong in the bible. There's lots of pseudo-science in the bible. It was written 2000 years ago by ignorant people. Of course it's scientifically wrong. A: Science can only do so much, and of course it is not a priority of resea…rch scientists to prove the Bible either true or false. Nevertheless, some of the evidence that science does provide includes: . The first creation story in Genesis is in the wrong order. It says that (i) the sun and the stars were created after the earth; (ii) grass was created before the sun. It says that the sun, moon and stars are fixed in a 'firmament' just above the earth, that separates the waters above from the waters below. . The second creation story in Genesis is also in an incorrect order. It says that God created Adam, then all the other animals and finally Eve. Genesis shows that Adam, the first human in the Bible, was created only about 6000 years ago, but science has proven that the first modern humans lived on earth over two hundred thousand years ago. . Science has proven there was never a worldwide Flood as in the story of Noah. In fact, there is not even enough water on earth to make this possible. . In a number of places, the Bible tells us that heaven is a physical place just above the earth. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven. Jesus rose bodily to heaven, and Stephen looked up and saw the heavens open and saw Jeus on the right hand of God. All our telescopes and spacecraft have never seen anything of this. . The science of archaeology has proven that many of the Old Testament stories are just that - stories. Another Answer : Not fully, but in general, Yes. Science is proving the veracity of many statements in Scripture - at least those that are physical and science can. Consider that there have been many 'scientific' ideas of creation and earth science that were and are now 'revised' or discounted. That is because man is limited in his knowledge but he continues to strive and learn. Consider some of ideas of mankind like the earth being the center of the Universe or the planet Earth sitting on the back of a man, turtle, or elephant. Then read Job 26:7. Science has only discovered in the 19th Century that the Creation is made of 'particles' invisible to the naked eye. Try read Hebrews 11:3 How about the proper dimensions of building a ship to sail the seas and then read Genesis 6:15 and see the ratio of the dimensions still in use today. Then there are todays proper sanitary conditions to help prevent disease - consider Deuteronomy 23:12-13 and see the ancient wisdoms. How about Oceanograpy and the mountains at the bottom of the seas - read Jonah 2:5-6 Can evolution explain emotions? - the Scriptures can - read Acts 14:17; Psalm 4:7 and 16:11. Old medicine believed in 'bleeding' to cure a person which usually lead to their demise. Today we know healthy blood is needed for life to be sustained yet the Scriptures said this in Leviticus 17:11;14). There are many, many more facts and replies to those above but that is not the question or necessary to show this answer. In my opinion, we would be far more scientifically advanced if we would only consider the Bible. But because of false interpretations of religious men of the past, and perhaps other prejudices, we we travel at this much slower, trial and error pace. ( Full Answer )
No. It can never be "proven" true. It's always open to question, and to any demonstration of its failure. But after time goes by, and no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the hypothesis fails, and the hypothesis has made predictions that were confirmed by experiments designed to test …them, then the hypothesis may be elevated to the status of a theory. But it's still waiting to be debunked. Interesting that a theory can be dis-proven in a day, but can't be proven in a thousand years. That's Science. ( Full Answer )
There are actually many laws about matter like that you can't destory it which sparks a theory about matter being what happens with the energy when you die.
A theory is a hypothesis that been tested and proven correct every time; a scientific law is a formula that embodies the principle of that theory in symbols, constants and units. For example, Newton's law of gravity says that the force of gravity between two objects is proportional to the product of… the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. In formula, F g = GMm/d 2 ( Full Answer )
Scientific theory is the accepted explanation of the phenomenon. It is a proven fact to the experiment condition However, the theory can be use for prediction of various further scenario that might be out of reach for proving it. Scientific theory may become invalid at some condition unknown to the …current science. It is generally hold as fact until any invalid condition is found. This limitation is commonly abused by pseudoscientist and religious cults claiming that science is not everything so they could continue on their nonsense claim and explanation, which, mostly doesn't pass any falsification mechanism. For example, many creationist would stated evolution or abiogenesis is only a theory not a fact, which is correct but Intelligent Design (ID) is neither being proven fact nor had been recognized as a valid scientific theory. Technically, scientific theory is not a proven fact but it was something that had been proven again and again with no fail until now. ( Full Answer )
A scientific hypothesis is often a theoretical statement stated before performing an experiment. They hypothesize that something is the case, perform the experiment or test, evaluate the results and then come to a conclusion about the hypothesis. Should the results be negative, the hypothesis is ei…ther thrown out entirely or discredited. Should the results be positive the hypothesis is supported by them and given more credit. ( Full Answer )
No. Evolution has been excepted as science, but it is not scientifically proven. Second answer Only mathematical equations can be "proven." Science simply compiles evidence that best supports natural phenomenon. In order for something to be considered scientific, it has to be falsifiable. So…me people with ideological biases claim evolution is not scientific since it can't be disproven. There have been numerous times in the past where it could have been, like the discovery of DNA. If all life on earth wasn't related, the DNA would have shown this. However, it showed that humans share genes with everything from the biggest redwood tree to the deadliest virus. Evolution has thus stood up to over 150 years of intense scrutiny. Therefore, it is not proven in a mathematical sense, but it is backed by lots of evidence. ( Full Answer )
the earth is flat That the dinosaurs were killed off by humans. That the earth is the center of the universe. That the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Aristotle's dynamic motion theory was proven wrong by a man named Galileo. He tested Aristotle's theory by dropping a heavy object and a lighter object at the same time. The experiment proved Aristotle wrong because the result was that the two objects were falling at the same rate (speed).
Scientists do not prove things and truth is always provisional; unless you are an ideologue. That said, evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains a great deal about that fact, in a internally consistent way and supported by mountains of many lines of converging… evidence. Fossil, generic, molecular. bio-geographic, anatomical, and embryological. to name several disciplines contributory to evolutionary theory. ( Full Answer )
Using strictly scientific definitions, no, a theory cannot be proven true. We shall examine why: Firstly, a hypothesis is an explanation of some phenomenon or group of facts, and can be tested repeatedly. This needs to be understood as the basis for the theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has su…ccessfully made correct predictions, and moreover has been supported by additional evidence which both fits within the hypothesis (can be explained by it) and does not refute it. To be proven true requires that the conclusion follow logically from the assumptions. For example, the commonly-used "Bill is a man. Men are mortal. Therefore, Bill is mortal." A theory cannot be proven true, because it does not draw from assumptions, instead relying on a statement and then allowing reality to either allow or deny that statement's correctness. For example, we see Bob petting a cat and say "Bob likes cats". Later, we ask Bob whether he does indeed like cats. Of course, the first time we ask him he might say yes, but the second time say no (or vice versa). Hence, the conclusion does not follow from any specified assumption, and cannot be always true. A theory's validity relies on how well its core statement fits with reality and whether any part of reality denies it. ( Full Answer )
Some I know of: Phlogiston, Galileo's theory of tides, Greek proposition that all numbers are rational, Proposition that malaria is caused by airborne miasmas.
Laws are consistent observations and always happen Theories are attempts to explain why certain laws are true.
Theories can be proven wrong with one piece of credible contrary evidence (e.g. gravity can be disproven if a scientist demonstrates that a dropped apple flies upward with no external help when it should be under the influence of gravity). However it is impossible to prove a theory absolutely right …since that requires infinite pieces of evidence (you have to drop everything from everywhere in the universe to prove that gravity is universal). ( Full Answer )
It's possible. However the definition of a law means it cannot be proven wrong. Whereas a theory can be.
scientific theory is something they believe and a law is something that always happens scientific law means a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to inveriable occur whenever certain conditions excist scientific law: a statement or equation that can predict what will happen in certain situat…ions scientific theory: a scientific explanation that connects and explains many observations ( Full Answer )
Both scientific laws and scientific theorys can be changed if something new comes up in the scientific world.
A scientific theory can never be "proven". It can only be "Disproved. Science is a process of elimination. We eliminate those theories which are not in agreement with current experimental evidence. But, it is nearly unreasonable to claim to have produced a theory which is in perfect agreement with e…very scientific discovery (at least for now). Even the most accurate scientific theories in the 21st century have uncertainties, most notably General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. These theories, for example, aim to describe the same phenomena (or equivalent mechanical phenomena) in two separate regimes. While many people hold high levels of confidence in both theories, the two have been found to be irreconcilable. It has, in fact, been proposed that the only way this problem can be overcome is if one (or both) of these theories is modified or abandoned. But, this is only possible if one (or both) of these theories is "disproved" . This is not necessarily a foreign thought. A lot of evidence, both experimental and observational, already seem to disagree with these theories. Unfortunately, abandoning one theory means having to develop a new and better theory. This has proven to be a huge task, and many scientists are preferring to either reform or modify the current theories. ( Full Answer )
Newton's Law of Gravity has been disproven, but it is still considered a law because it remains widely applicable. It is only a little bit wrong in extreme situations, such as the sun's perturbations of the orbit of Mercury, or at relativistic velocities. In science, concepts do not become elevat…ed to the status of laws without considerable support. Some good examples: Einstein's Law of Relativity and Darwin's Law of Evolution, both of which are referred to as theories largely out of adherence to popular convention. ( Full Answer )
a scientific theory is proven through observations and experiments In the scientific method, a theory is a hypotheses that has some experimental support. No scientific theory is ever considered "proven"; instead it can be said that it has not yet been falsified by experiment. In general, the theory …should be able to predict the outcome of an experiment that is set up to test it. If the results of the experiment agree with the prediction of the theory, the experiment supports the theory. It may still be possible to construct a set of conditions under which the theory fails to make a successful prediction, in which case the theory would be modified to account for those conditions. ( Full Answer )
No. A law is a description of an observed pattern in the universe. A theory is a model that explains observations. E.g. atomic theory explains many of the things that matter does. There will not be a time in the future when we will call it "atomic law" because the model of atoms is concerned with ex…plaining the behavior of matter, not describing it. ( Full Answer )
Scientific theories do not " prove " things, they explain things. So, before the big bang is not yet explained, as an example.
A scientific Theory is when it tries to explainsomething in an experiment that happens repededly in nature or the natural world. A scientific law is whenthere is repeated behavior in an experiment but cannot be explained.
There was once a theory, that electromagnetic waves might be used for communication over long distance. Your mobile phone is the proof that the theory was correct.
The theory that the Earth is the center of the Universe and that the stars are on a sphere that rotates around the Earth (Ptolemaic theory)
No, it has not been scientifically proven, but people claim to see them all the time. your question is more based on religion. depending on what religion you follow, 'ghosts' or spirits mean a different thing!:)
i think it nota law because a law is a system of laws that we have to fallow and a theeoryis a hypothus of data
A scientific law is a theory that has been tried and tried again without fail. So, yes. It can be proven to be true.
A scientific law is the last step in a series of steps that starts with an observation and a possible theory of why is it or how is it happening.
A scientific law completely describes the results of a particular situation. A theory describes a range of results with some question about what occurs at the margins. In general Laws are more specific than Theories. For example, we have Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation that only applies in wea…k gravitational fields, but in general we have the Theory of Gravity. ( Full Answer )