Theories and Laws
jewel July 18th, 2009
Last night a I and a group of friends were having a conversation (sometimes argument or debate) about what science is and what constitutes proof. It kind of went in circles for a while, but I enjoyed the process none the less. One of the group, who is actually pretty scientifically literate, made a statement that I knew to be false, but I couldn’t really explain the difference at the time. He said that in science a theory, once proven, became a law. I knew that was not right.
Today, I decided to do some Googling and find the answer and commit it to memory for next time. In short, scientific laws are a description of an observation. Laws don’t tell you why or how something happens, though. That is where theories come in. A theory is the real meat of science, explaining the observed phenomena. If anything, a theory actually holds more weight than a law because the theory actually explains what is happening. And a theory never becomes a law.
Here are a few websites that go into a bit more detail on this:
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories – The Scientific Method
Scientific Laws and Theories
Scientific Law Wiki
Not Just a Theory
- science
- Comments(13)
Google+
Twitter
Yes, exactly… a law just describes a repeatable phenomenon (usually mathematically), like “all objects in gravity fall at the same rate” or “objects in constant motion (or rest) stay in constant motion (or rest) unless acted upon by a force” and so on. And theories provide the model for why these things happen.
I’m reading this great book called “Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction” — it’s about pseudo-science and examines claims like ESP, creationism, etc and shows how they don’t hold up in the scientific process in terms of making an observation of a phenomenon, defining a hypothesis, carrying out experiments under controlled conditions to explore the hyposthesis, and then how the hypothesis gets modified or discarded based upon the repeated experimentation and corroboration with data.
I’m ordering that book right now. Sounds really interesting.
The authors are Charles M. Wynn and Arthur W. Wiggins
Yep, got it
Thanks!
BTW, I have started a new blog called “Autodidacted”:
http://debunkcreation.wordpress.com/
Despite the URL, it’s not really focused just on debunking creation, it’s a resurrection of an old blog I had started for someone else.
Cool! I’ve added it to my sidebar links and to my feed reader. Looks interesting!
eta: I like the design quite a lot, too. Very pleasing to the eye.
Thanks! I am going to be posting a review of the book I mentioned this weekend.
I just wish there was a bit more care in the use of “theory.” The folks trying to debunk evolution often claim “It is only a theory.” Scientists reply that a theory is a highly complimentary label that says the evidence strongly supports this idea and it is widely accepted. At the same time we have talk about “string theory,” which seems far from being an established idea backed by evidence.
Perhaps there is a differentiation between “String Theory” and “Theory of Strings?” At any rate the usage often confuses me and I should read some of your references.
Clear skies, Alan
It really isn’t that hard to fathom why people would be confused by the terminology at all. That science uses words – that most of us use every day – to mean something different does take getting used to. That’s actually why I wrote this post – so that I could better understand the difference and be better prepared next time it comes up in conversation. And, hey, if it can clear anything up for anyone else, then that’s just a bonus.
I have often wondered about string theory, now that you mention it. I have no idea at all if it is well supported or not – I’m assuming the math supports it to at least some degree, but observation, I have no idea. It does seem a bit “out there”, though. I don’t have nearly enough of a math and physics background to be able to make any kind of determination about it it on my own, but it does sound quite interesting.
I understand why people are confused by the terminology, it just bothers me that scientists don’t seem consistent in their usage – which can only add to the confusion. To me, sting theory seems little more than an interesting intellectual and mathematical exercise with absolutely no evidence behind it. Even if my analysis is a bit too harsh, it certainly doesn’t have the stature of evolution and gravity, and doesn’t yet deserve to be called a theory.
Clear skies, Alan
You raise an excellent point, Alan and I don’t disagree.
I really need to read more about String Theory and what predictions it makes. And also, where it fits in to the “theory”/”not theory” model of what we’re used to seeing.
Thank you Alan — now you’ve gotten me intensely curious.
You’re quite welcome. Thanks for the interesting links.
Clear skies, Alan