Compare a scientific law to a scientific theory?

Answer 1

scientific law describes what nature does under certain conditions An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule.

2. A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

3. A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement.

scientific theory explains how nature works The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena.2. A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature.

3. A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation.

4. a. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. b. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof.

5. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed.

6. An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence.

Answer 2

This is a tough one. The rock-bottom basic truth is that all scientific knowledge is at its core theory, and subject to change in unexpected ways, and at unexpected times. Newton's laws of motion are great examples. Considering earth-bound observations, these standard equations work well. They even helped us develop a great deal of our space technology. But Einstein's theories of relativity demonstrate that Newton's laws are really not entirely accurate; they do not hold at relativistic velocities. And Einstein's theories are NOT extensions or developments of Newton's work; they are mathematically independent of Newton. It's altogether possible that the theories of relativity will be shown to be only approximations of some deeper system.

So we call theories 'laws' because they have been verified countless times over long periods of time, and have reliably aided researchers in the advancement of knowledge. We may be missing some information that will come to light in a few decades in your laboratory, accounting for some special cases or completely new insights that will lead you to develop new laws! The word 'law' regarding science is often seriously over-blown, and may sometimes become a stumbling block in the path of progress. It is often a matter of contention in the ever-present circular and mostly pointless discussions on science vs faith which can produce, meaning no offense to anyone, ridiculous claims on bothsides.

Usually these 'laws' (well established theories) are easily expressed and used in the language of mathematics. This is good and bad. The mathematical aspect may give the 'law' the dubious appearance of being absolute, mysterious and unassailable truth. On the other hand, mathematical models are usually quite clear and more easily tested against new information, and therefore more easily exposed as inaccurate, incomplete, or useful only within certain parameters.

There are no scientific laws or fundamental theories that are exempt from further research and possible modification. We are talking about theory at the level of basic components of the world and its function, like relativity, quantum theory and evolution. Some theories have become simple observable facts and so overturning them is a non-issue (the earth's orbit around the sun, for example, is no longer theory in the minds of any thinking people). The theories of interest to this question are the theories that cannot be reduced to clearly observable reality.

Answer 3

a scientific law is a law in which the once-theory was tested in its theory and proven by experiment. an example of it is newton's law of gravity. a scientific theory is a theory in which it still needs to be proven. and example of it is the big bang theory.

Answer 4

A scientific law describes a phenomenon or relationship observed consistently in nature, typically expressed as a mathematical statement. A scientific theory, on the other hand, explains why and how a natural phenomenon occurs based on empirical evidence and experimentation. Theories are more comprehensive and overarching than laws, providing a framework for understanding various related phenomena.

Answer 5

A theory still has missing pieces yet to be solved, whereas a scientific law has all of the pieces solved and explained with no holes or gaps.