How Hypotheses Evolve To Laws: Understanding The Process

In the scientific community, the terms hypothesis, theory, and law have distinct definitions, but these definitions are often misunderstood or unclear outside of this context. A common misconception is that a hypothesis can be upgraded to a theory, and a theory to a law, if supported by sufficient evidence. However, this is not the case. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are separate elements of the scientific method, each serving a unique purpose. So, can a hypothesis become a law?

Scientific laws are separate from hypotheses

Scientific laws, hypotheses, theories, and facts are distinct elements of the scientific method. They are all scientific explanations that differ in breadth, not in the level of support. While a hypothesis is a potential explanation for a narrow phenomenon, a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation that applies to a wide range of phenomena.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses but are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as a result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations.

Theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. For instance, biological evolution is a theory as it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Scientific laws are descriptions, often mathematical, of natural phenomena. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, it is important to note that Newton's law does not explain what gravity is or how it works. In other words, scientific laws do not explain why a phenomenon exists or what causes it. While laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical evidence, they are not the same thing. Laws are a starting point for scientists to ask further questions and explore the underlying causes of observed phenomena.

Laws are descriptions of phenomena

In science, a law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Scientific laws are often based on repeated experiments or observations over many years and are accepted universally within the scientific community. They are often mathematical descriptions of natural phenomena, such as Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws describe the observation without explaining how or why they work. For example, Newton's law of gravity mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other, but it does not explain what gravity is or how it works.

Scientific laws are distinct from hypotheses, theories, and facts, which are all separate elements of the scientific method. A hypothesis is a potential explanation of a narrow phenomenon, while a theory provides an in-depth explanation that applies to a wide range of phenomena. Facts, on the other hand, are simple, one-off observations that have been proven true. For example, "Apples fall down from this apple tree" is a fact, while "The strength of gravity between any two objects (like an apple and the Earth) depends on the masses of the objects and the distance between them" is a law because it describes the behaviour of two objects in a certain circumstance.

Scientific laws are also different from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena but are rather distillations of the results of repeated observations. As such, the applicability of a law is limited to circumstances resembling those already observed, and extrapolating beyond those circumstances may lead to false conclusions. This is because laws are discovered, not invented, and they implicitly reflect, without explicitly asserting, the causal relationships fundamental to reality.

The term "law" is used in various ways across different fields of science, including approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow usage in physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, and biology. For example, Gresham's "Law" in economics is a descriptive principle that explains human behaviour without being a causal agent. Similarly, Zipf's law of linguistics, Moore's law of technological growth, and the law of unintended consequences are observed phenomena described as laws. These laws fall within the scope of what is known as "uncomfortable science."

Scientific laws don't explain why phenomena exist

Scientific laws are a fundamental aspect of the scientific method, providing concise and consistent descriptions of natural phenomena. However, they do not elucidate the underlying causes or the "why" behind these phenomena. For instance, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation mathematically describes the force of gravity between two objects, but it does not explain what gravity is or how it operates. This distinction is crucial, as scientific laws serve as a starting point for further scientific inquiry, prompting scientists to delve into the underlying mechanisms and causes.

The notion that scientific laws are static and absolute is a common misconception. In reality, scientific laws are subject to evolution as our understanding of the universe expands. They are not set in stone but are continually refined and improved upon through scientific research and the accumulation of empirical evidence. This dynamic nature of scientific laws underscores the importance of philosophy in science, challenging the notion of immutable laws and driving the pursuit of more accurate models that better describe the complexities of the natural world.

While scientific laws provide a foundational understanding of observed phenomena, they do not offer a comprehensive explanation of the underlying mechanisms. This is where scientific theories come into play. Theories seek to explain the "why" and "how" behind the phenomena described by scientific laws. They provide in-depth explanations that apply to a wide range of phenomena and represent our current understanding of how nature operates. For example, Einstein's Special Relativity explains the relationship between space and time for objects moving at a constant speed, offering insights into the fundamental workings of the universe.

It is important to distinguish between scientific laws and theories, as they serve different purposes in the scientific process. Scientific laws offer concise descriptions of natural phenomena, often in the form of mathematical equations, while theories delve into the underlying explanations and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena in question. This distinction is crucial, as it highlights the iterative nature of scientific discovery, where laws provide a foundation for further exploration and theories offer a more nuanced interpretation of the observed phenomena.

In conclusion, scientific laws serve as foundational descriptions of natural phenomena, providing a starting point for scientific inquiry. However, they do not explain why these phenomena exist or what causes them. The role of scientific laws is to offer consistent and widely accepted models that can be built upon and refined through further research and the development of scientific theories. This iterative process of scientific discovery allows us to continually expand our understanding of the natural world, even if we may never reach an ultimate or absolute truth.

Scientific theories are supported by repeated testing

In the scientific community, the terms "hypothesis", "theory", and "law" have distinct definitions that differ from their usage in colloquial contexts. A hypothesis is a potential explanation for a narrow phenomenon, while a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation that applies to a wide range of phenomena and is supported by repeated testing. A theory is widely accepted in the scientific community as being true and must never be proven wrong. If a theory is disproven, it is discarded. Theories can evolve as new information is discovered, leading to more complete explanations. For instance, Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity built upon Isaac Newton's earlier work on gravity, providing a more nuanced understanding of the force of gravity.

Scientific laws, on the other hand, are descriptive, often mathematical, explanations of natural phenomena. They do not delve into the underlying causes or mechanisms of the observed phenomena. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity mathematically describes how two objects in the universe interact, but it does not explain what gravity is or how it works. This distinction between laws and theories is important, as it highlights that laws provide a foundational understanding of patterns in nature, while theories seek to explain the underlying mechanisms.

It is essential to understand that these concepts do not exist in a linear hierarchy where a hypothesis can be "upgraded" to a theory or a law. They are separate elements of the scientific method, each serving a unique purpose. The evolution of a hypothesis into a theory or a law is not merely a matter of gathering sufficient evidence. Instead, it involves a process of scientific inquiry, experimentation, and validation that may lead to the development of new theories or the refinement of existing ones.

The distinction between scientific laws and theories is further highlighted by the fact that both are supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence. However, a theory may evolve as new information comes to light, whereas a law is generally considered absolute within its domain of applicability. For example, Newton's laws of motion accurately describe the motion of objects on Earth but are less applicable in the context of relativistic speeds or extremely massive objects, where Einstein's theories of relativity provide a more accurate framework.

In conclusion, scientific theories are indeed supported by repeated testing, and this is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. The iterative process of hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and theoretical development ensures that our understanding of the natural world is robust, adaptable, and grounded in empirical evidence.

Laws can be changed through future scientific research

In science, a law is a description of an observed phenomenon, often framed as a mathematical statement. For instance, Newton's Law of Gravity describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, it does not explain what gravity is or how it works.

Scientific laws are supported by a large body of empirical evidence that is accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of study. They help unify this body of data, but they are not the same as scientific theories. Theories provide an explanation for a phenomenon, answering the 'why' and 'how' questions that a scientific law does not.

Scientific laws can be changed through future scientific research. As new research accumulates, scientific understanding can change, and laws may need to be adapted or replaced to reflect this. For example, the scientific literature supporting pre-1995 arson investigation practices or non-DNA hair identification has since been found to be inadequate. Similarly, our understanding of the relationship between the trauma of childhood abuse and violence has evolved.

The law must respond when science changes, especially in legal cases where scientific evidence is used. For instance, a person who has been convicted can ask the court to reconsider their case because the scientific evidence has changed. This is known as a habeas corpus petition, and several states in the US allow for this.

Therefore, while scientific laws are based on extensive empirical evidence and accepted by the scientific community, they are not absolute and can evolve through future scientific research and advancements.

Frequently asked questions