Theories To Laws: Science's Eternal Evolution

The question of whether a scientific theory can become a law is a common misconception. In science, a theory and a law refer to two different things and serve distinct purposes. A scientific law is a description or explanation of a natural phenomenon, often in the form of a mathematical equation, whereas a theory goes beyond this description and explains why and how the phenomenon occurs. For instance, the law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects, but it does not explain what gravity is or why it works, and that explanation is provided by the theory of general relativity. Therefore, a theory does not evolve into a law with further evidence; they are separate elements of the scientific method.

Theories explain how and why something happens

In science, theories are distinct from laws. While laws are simple facts and formulas that are universally applicable, theories explain how and why something happens. For example, the law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects, but it does not explain what gravity is or why it works. That is where the theory of general relativity comes in.

Theories are well-substantiated explanations of aspects of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses, facts, inferences, and tested hypotheses. They are supported by evidence and can be used to make predictions. Theories are also testable, meaning that new evidence should be compatible with a theory. If the evidence is not compatible, the theory may be refined or rejected. The more observations a theory predicts, the more tests it passes, and the more facts it explains, the stronger it is.

Theories are also distinct from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures. Theories are more reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive than hypotheses, which are generally ideas that have not been tested or proven.

Theories are analytical tools that help us understand, explain, and make predictions about a given subject matter. They are abstract and conceptual, and they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. Theories are rigorously tentative, meaning they are proposed as true but are expected to undergo careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. When new evidence is gathered, theories may be corrected to conform to it, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made.

Laws are simple facts and formulas

In science, laws are simple facts and formulas that are so basic that they apply universally. For instance, Ohm's Law, which is represented by the formula I=V/R, tells us that in an electrical circuit, amperage is equal to voltage divided by resistance. This law is essential for anyone working with electricity, as it applies to any electrical circuit. However, it does not explain what amperage is or why it equals voltage divided by resistance.

Laws are descriptions, often mathematical, of natural phenomena. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity describes and quantifies the attraction between two objects, but it does not explain what gravity is or why it works the way it does. That is the role of a theory.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, scientific theories are supported by evidence, can be tested, and can be used to make predictions.

Theories and laws are separate elements of the scientific method. They may evolve, but they do not get "upgraded" from one to the other. A theory explains why something happens, while a law tells us what happens.

Theories are supported by evidence

Theories are complex sets of statements made up of facts, data, laws, and hypotheses. They are explanations of natural phenomena, and you can use them to make predictions. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains how organisms adapt.

Theories are supported by a large body of empirical evidence that is accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of study. They are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. For instance, the theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter.

Theories can change, but it is a long and difficult process. For a theory to change, there must be many observations or pieces of evidence that the theory cannot explain.

Laws describe natural phenomena

Scientific laws are simple descriptions of natural phenomena. They are usually mathematical descriptions of some aspect of the natural world, such as gravity. For example, 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.

Theories, on the other hand, explain why something happens. For instance, the theory of general relativity explains gravity. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses".

In other words, laws describe what happens, while theories explain how and why it happens. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy in an isolated system remains constant, but it does not explain why this is the case. The theory of evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, explains how organisms adapt.

It is important to note that theories never change into laws, no matter how much evidence supports them. Formulating theories is the end goal of science. As such, a theory cannot become a law, as they are two different things.

Theories can be proven wrong

Scientific theories are supported by evidence and can be tested and used to make predictions. However, theories can also be proven wrong.

Theories are supported by evidence, and the more evidence there is, the stronger the theory becomes and the more accepted it becomes. However, history has shown that even very strong evidence can be misleading. For example, in 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This prediction seemed to provide strong evidence for his theory that humans develop through stages corresponding to "less perfect" species. However, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution later showed that Meckel's idea was completely untenable.

Another example of a theory that was proven wrong is the 18th-century geologist James Hutton's idea that the Earth is like an organic body that constantly reproduces itself to provide a habitable world for humans. Hutton's theory was wrong in several ways, including the fact that the Earth is not designed for human beings. Despite his theoretical errors, his predictions were successful and influential, and his theory was still considered a serious candidate for the truth 100 years later.

Theories can also be proven wrong through equations. For example, Niels Bohr predicted the correct frequencies of the specific colours of light absorbed and emitted by ionised helium, which persuaded Einstein and many others that his theory was correct. However, we now know that Bohr's model of the atom was deeply flawed.

Arnold Sommerfeld's development of Bohr's model is another example of a theory that was proven wrong. Sommerfeld's model correctly described the detailed pattern of colours of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen. However, we now know that electrons don't really orbit the nucleus at all, and his theory had a radical misconception at its heart.

In conclusion, while scientific theories are supported by evidence and can be very influential, they can also be proven wrong through new evidence, predictions, or equations that show their underlying flaws.

Frequently asked questions