A scientific model can change if new evidence is found. If the new evidence that has been found contradicts the model or theory then a scientific model or theory can change.
A scientific theory presents an explanation for a phenomenon. Using that explanation, one can then make predictions about what will happen under certain conditions. But the prediction is not the theory, it is a implication of the theory.
Scientific theory is a well supported by evidence set of principles that explain and predict natural phenomenon. A scientific law explains what some phenomenon does scientifically and under the same conditions.
A scientific law is something that has been proved again and again under experimentation, and is always true. A scientific theory is an educated guess made based off of a group of data that is not proven to be true. For example, Newton's Laws are scientific laws since they have been proven to be always true. The theory of gravity is a scientific theory because gravity itself has not been completely proven to exist.
No. Phlogiston was a theory considered to be fact and actually hindered scientific knowledge until it was discredited. The theory was used to explain certain observations about flame, oxidation, and the formation of certain compounds, most noticeably cinnabar. As with some theories, phlogiston used variable factors to explain anomalies. For instance it was assumed to have negative weight under certain circumstances. Once oxidation was properly understood phlogiston theory was no longer considered true.
A scientific model can change if new evidence is found. If the new evidence that has been found contradicts the model or theory then a scientific model or theory can change.
Describe the procedure adopted under the scientific method in the development of economic theories
A scientific theory presents an explanation for a phenomenon. Using that explanation, one can then make predictions about what will happen under certain conditions. But the prediction is not the theory, it is a implication of the theory.
Scientific theory is a well supported by evidence set of principles that explain and predict natural phenomenon. A scientific law explains what some phenomenon does scientifically and under the same conditions.
Scientific theory is a well supported by evidence set of principles that explain and predict natural phenomenon. A scientific law explains what some phenomenon does scientifically and under the same conditions.
Scientific theory is a well supported by evidence set of principles that explain and predict natural phenomenon. A scientific law explains what some phenomenon does scientifically and under the same conditions.
You're playing with words ... a "law" is just a thumb nail description of a theory.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess of what will happen in the experiment. A scientific theory is someone's thoughts on why something happened in an experiment. However, this cannot be proven. The opposite of this is a scientific law. This is statement of what will always happen under the same conditions.
The validity of a scientific theory is typically tested through experimentation and observation. Scientists conduct tests and gather data to either support or refute the predictions made by the theory. Consistent and replicable results contribute to the validation of a scientific theory.
It takes a counter-example. A scientific law makes predictions about how things will behave in a given situation. If something else happens and it cannot be explained by other factors then the law must be wrong - at least in those circumstances under which the test was conducted.
A scientific law is something that has been proved again and again under experimentation, and is always true. A scientific theory is an educated guess made based off of a group of data that is not proven to be true. For example, Newton's Laws are scientific laws since they have been proven to be always true. The theory of gravity is a scientific theory because gravity itself has not been completely proven to exist.
No. Phlogiston was a theory considered to be fact and actually hindered scientific knowledge until it was discredited. The theory was used to explain certain observations about flame, oxidation, and the formation of certain compounds, most noticeably cinnabar. As with some theories, phlogiston used variable factors to explain anomalies. For instance it was assumed to have negative weight under certain circumstances. Once oxidation was properly understood phlogiston theory was no longer considered true.