Why do so many people see scientific theories as being sub par to scientific laws?
Asked by
Myndecho (
948
)
April 13th, 2009
I hear this all too often with evolution “It’s still a theory” Still?! Well of course because theories will always be theories even if proven true, laws and theories are different things.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
32 Answers
The answer seems rather obvious: Because it doesn’t support the position of the person considering them sub par.
Theories are an educated guess, scientific laws have proof to back them up.
@NaturalMineralWater
But then why do they see laws as being superior.
@AlfredaPrufrock
No
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions.
scientific theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena.
Why do you think it was always Boyle’s law and never Boyle’s theory? They are different thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Scientific_laws Read.
@Myndecho Because of what AlfredaPrufrock said. Your definition of a scientific theory seems rather vague. I disagree that the whole is necessarily equal to the sum of the parts.
BTW I like your nickname.. pretty darn cool.
@NaturalMineralWater
Cheers.
Google theories that have become laws and you will see it has never happened and then you will find out why they can’t by default that they are stating different thing.
@Myndecho You can easily see why there would be confusion. Your wiki “definition” of a scientific theory is different than the definition of the actual word “theory”.
I sort of agreed with you in my last post by saying “I disagree that the whole is necessarily equal to the sum of the parts.” .. meaning yes.. they aren’t the same thing at all… however.. it seems equally true that you have to consider a scientific theory at least marginally less credible than a scientific law based on their definitions alone. Perhaps this is where people get the “sub-par” perspective.
@Myndecho And when compared to a theory? What is the likelihood of a theory being proven untrue? Would you say it is more likely or less likely than a law being proven untrue?
I agree with Myndecho: laws are discovered, theories are invented. Look here: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/scihist.html
“This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was “just a theory.” The president’s misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until “lawness” has been bestowed upon it.
The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other—no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).
I have a theory that some squirrels are communist spies
@NaturalMineralWater – You have correctly pointed out that the word ‘theory’ is ambiguous like so many words in natural languages. In terms of the actual word ‘theory’ it’s actually the other way round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made. In the sciences generally, theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.
When people in everyday language use the word ‘theory’ what they usually mean (in a scientific sense) is a hypothesis i.e. an untested theory. Let’s use theory in the scientific sense. Scientific laws are NOT sub par to scientific theories. Theories usually comprise a set of scientific laws (they might be seen as sub par to scientific hypotheses).
Here’s an example:
The theory of relativity comprises many laws such as time dilation or mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2).
Theories can explain observations by using scientific method. They can also make reliable predictions about the future.
Evolution is another scientific theory. It is well tested and not considered a hypothesis anymore. So when you hear ‘it’s still a theory’ what people mean it’s still a hypothesis which it’s not. It’s a fact. It’s an accepted branch of science.The empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming, even though we can’t build a time machine to go back 65 millions years. Nucleosynthesis inside of stars is also a proven fact even though we can’t look into the core of our sun.
“Echoing the philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” He goes on to state, “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” The “unprovable but falsifiable” nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.”
@mattbrowne “Evolution is another scientific theory. It is well tested and not considered a hypothesis anymore. So when you hear ‘it’s still a theory’ what people mean it’s still a hypothesis which it’s not. It’s a fact.”
Why do so many people still find ways to dispute this if it’s, indeed, a fact? No one walks around saying gravity doesn’t exist.
As some people have proven here, it is usually because many people do not know the difference between common usage theory and scientific theory. They think a theory is an educated guess. No, no it’s not. In science, an educated guess is called a hypothesis.
Is it because schools don’t bother to teach science properly despite the fact it is more and more relevant in modern life.
It’s because, as has been demonstrated in this thread, the word “theory” is a term of art that means something different in scientific contexts than it does in vernacular contexts.
People who say “it’s just a theory” to dismiss something are using the word in its vernacular meaning.
Because people do not generally understand what those two words mean. A theory is simply a consistent explanation. Calling something a theory is not indicative of how “proven” it is or how certain we are about it. Theories are merely scientific explanations that are self consistent and consistent with the evidence. Theories are just models that are derived from evidence.
Laws, on the other hand, are completely separate from theories. You can’t compare theories and laws on a scale of “provenness.” Laws are not explanations; laws are simply things we find to be true in nature. Generally, laws are just mathematical expressions that just happen to be true. There are always conditions in which the law is not true, and laws can be proven false far easier than theories can. Laws are no hierarchically higher than theories. If anything, theories are closer to “proof” than laws are.
@NaturalMineralWater: Generally speaking, the people that dispute evolution and natural selection are religiously minded, and it’s easy to ignore blatant facts when you’re hopped up on faith. Well, apparently it is, considering how many people do it. Personally, I find it hard to completely disregard evidence like… oh, genetics, but I suppose that means I’m a light weight.
Also, @classyfied and @cwilbur: Highfive! I always seem to have a hard time explaining that to people!
@NaturalMineralWater – Not so many people in Europe, but too many in the US. Still, even in the US creationists and “intelligent” design supporters are a minority. They are trying to find ways to dispute evolution, but are of course unable to find any evidence. Why are they doing this? Well, for the same reasons the Church put Galileo Galileo under house arrest. Some people are afraid of change and changing views. Even scientists are not immune. Look at the outrage Einstein created. It took British physicists a few decades to accept the new theory. Darwin even lived before Einstein, but creationists are not scientists so they might need more than a few decades. Maybe they need a few centuries. Let them believe what they want as long as they don’t start messing with the biology curriculum. This is when real harm can be done and we must fight this with the power of our words.
Is someone messing with the biology curriculum?
Ahh yes.. the famous warning label.. I’ve heard of this. Honestly, I’m not sure what the fuss is on either side. If people don’t want their children learning “public school” type things there are plenty of “religion-based” schools out there.
The world is just one big sandbox.. and nobody wants to share the little plastic shovel.
I, for one, remember going to school and being perfectly capable of picking out what was simply curriculum and what was actually true.
Whenever i get into the theory argument with people i usually just say something along the lines of “well you know gravity is still just a theory” that tends to shut people up pretty fast.
Gravity is not a theory. Gravitational theory applies to the theory that planets are pulling on each other. Newton’s 3rd law is the law that applies to gravity.
Please – there is a big difference.
“The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction must be made in scientific usage. “Gravitation” is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while “gravity” refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth’s rotation.[2][3]”
@uberbatman
I don’t want to repeat myself.
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions.
scientific theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena.
The phenomenon of things falling is a law.
Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity. This theory contains several scientific laws. Today Newton’s law of gravitation is considered an approximation.
That is true – Newton’s theory of gravitation has been superseded by the general theory of relativity, because the theory failed when it came to quantum mechanics and force fields.
@Myndecho maybe you can explain this to me then. “scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions.” Gravity isnt always under the same conditions
In all honesty i dont have a huge understanding of gravity. I just recall the first day of my physics class i got an hour long lecture on how gravity was just a theory.
@uber- If that’s true, then gravity is kicking my ass, theoretically.
Because they have no clue what these terms mean in context of science.
A scientific theory is a logical and in some fields, mathematical framework to explain reality, supported by evidence.
A scientific law is a formulated rule that is PART of a theory..
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
