What must happen for a scientific theory to become a scientific law? What conditions did Newton's Law pass in order to become one? And what must happen for the theory of evolution to become the law of evolution?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What's required for a theory to become a law?
- Thread starter David Jerome
- Start date
Puptart
Live, Laugh, Love.. and adopt a dog :)
- May 14, 2012
- 948
- 101
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." ~Albert Einstein
Tough words to swallow, but more-true words have never been spoken.
Who says every theory turns into a law? In a way, theories are made up of laws. Laws are building blocks.. theories use those building blocks to process information and determine how things come together and work as a bigger picture.
My only wish for the word "Theory" is that it were some other word that people would stop confusing with "Guessing".
The title of Theory is one of respected position. A theory is a magnificent thing that has examined the evidence, enrolled all the laws throughout the process, and has made a determination on how things work as a result. It is not a guess; it is respected and trusted science, but no less trustworthy even if a theory down the road must be modified based on new developments. That's why the majority of theories will most likely always be theories. You can't make a law from extrapolation... extrapolation is based on law.
Perhaps obviously there are times when what we know today as "law" was nothing more than a hypothesis.. but that does not mean every theory will turn to law. Laws and theories both come from hypotheses and I think it is erroneous thinking to say there is a fixed linear pattern of "Hypothesis > Theory > Law".
It's just not that simple.
Tough words to swallow, but more-true words have never been spoken.
Who says every theory turns into a law? In a way, theories are made up of laws. Laws are building blocks.. theories use those building blocks to process information and determine how things come together and work as a bigger picture.
My only wish for the word "Theory" is that it were some other word that people would stop confusing with "Guessing".
The title of Theory is one of respected position. A theory is a magnificent thing that has examined the evidence, enrolled all the laws throughout the process, and has made a determination on how things work as a result. It is not a guess; it is respected and trusted science, but no less trustworthy even if a theory down the road must be modified based on new developments. That's why the majority of theories will most likely always be theories. You can't make a law from extrapolation... extrapolation is based on law.Perhaps obviously there are times when what we know today as "law" was nothing more than a hypothesis.. but that does not mean every theory will turn to law. Laws and theories both come from hypotheses and I think it is erroneous thinking to say there is a fixed linear pattern of "Hypothesis > Theory > Law".
It's just not that simple.
Upvote
0
a) No one said all theories become laws."No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." ~Albert Einstein
Tough words to swallow, but more-true words have never been spoken.
Who says every theory turns into a law? In a way, theories are made up of laws. Laws are building blocks.. theories use those building blocks to process information and determine how things come together and work as a bigger picture.
My only wish for the word "Theory" is that it were some other word that people would stop confusing with "Guessing".
Perhaps obviously there are times when what we know today as "law" was nothing more than a hypothesis.. but that does not mean every theory will turn to law. Laws and theories both come from hypotheses and I think it is erroneous thinking to say there is a fixed linear pattern of "Hypothesis > Theory > Law".
It's just not that simple.
b) No one downplayed the importance of a theory.
c) You still didn't answer the question. What makes a theory a law?
Upvote
0
Theories can't really become laws since they are somewhat different, for example you make the observation that if you let go of a ball it will fall to the ground. If you now do that several times you can form the law, that that will happen every time and if you use more objects you can start to suspect, that that will happen with every object as long as it has a weight greater then zero in our atmosphere.
A theory on the other hand would now try to explain why that happens, how exactly all is connected, how the objects would behave in different atmospheres etc.
So in short, a law is a reasonable assumption about action -> reaction in that specific situation based on observations, while a theory is trying to at least somewhat explain and predict the connection between action and reaction.
Or as Wikipedia puts it:
A theory on the other hand would now try to explain why that happens, how exactly all is connected, how the objects would behave in different atmospheres etc.
So in short, a law is a reasonable assumption about action -> reaction in that specific situation based on observations, while a theory is trying to at least somewhat explain and predict the connection between action and reaction.
Or as Wikipedia puts it:
Upvote
0
CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Multiple independent lines of evidence gathered over hundreds of years that best explains observable phenomena.
Upvote
0
Not much.
Essentially all it requires is "agreement". Hubble's "law" for instance is actually a "theory" that requires the existence of no less than 3 "hypothetical" entities. Tired light "theories' also explain the same data WITHOUT movement of any sort. The distinction between the terms "hypothesis", 'theory' and "law" are virtually meaningless in astronomy, although there are some tangible distinctions in particle physics.It might be useful to note that Newton's concepts of gravity have now been replaced by GR "theory".
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Laws are basically the most consistantly demonstrated type of observation. We see, universally, that the gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. It's a law. We universally observe that p=mv. It's a law. Theories explain those laws. We have the LAW of universal gravitation that the attraction between two bodies is proportional to their masses and the square of the distance between them. We then have theories of gravitation that attempt to explain WHY that proportion exists.
Upvote
0
No. Hubble's law is the universal observation that objects in deep space are always red shifted. The theory of space expansion is a theory because it attempts to explain this law.
Upvote
0
[serious];60684431 said:
True. Mainstream theory uses a total of three "hypothetical" entities in it's BB "theory" to explain that "law".
You have to admit that the distinction between law, theory and hypothesis (hypothetical entity) is pretty much arbitrary in cosmology.FYI, that's only a theory.
[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample
Upvote
0
True. Mainstream theory uses a total of three "hypothetical" entities in it's BB "theory" to explain that "law".
FYI, that's only a theory.
[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample
There is a reason some garbage can't find even a joke journal. Anyone who states conflict with special relativity is an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about general relativity or cosmological models.
Upvote
0
What the heck are you talking about?
arXiv.org Search
I just love how astronomers abandon the idea of honest scientific debate and immediately start with the personal attacks (in this case "idiot") the moment they even THINK that their belief systems are under attack. What a VERBALLY ABUSIVE industry.
By the way, when did he state conflict with Special relativity in that paper???????!?!?!??!?
Upvote
0
Did you even read the abstract? At least link to papers you have read the abstract.
Honest debate???? We don't have time to engage debate with people posting utter junk. If a plumber was told to quit using copper piping and use pasta instead do you think he's going to have a debate with that person or dismiss him as an idiot?
Upvote
0
Doveaman
Re-Created, Not Evolved.
- Mar 4, 2009
- 8,464
- 597
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
In other words, a scientific theory can never be proven right, it can only be proven wrong.
Makes me wonder why there are so many internet scientists on here trying to convince others they are right.
Upvote
0
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,474
- 4,012
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Because things that have been demonstrated at length to be both useful and not wrong are colloquially known as being right.
Upvote
0
N
Nabobalis
Guest
Theories don't become a law. Laws are generally simple statements about nature that seem to be always true. They are generally defined mathematically as well.
Though If I recall, laws have a more historical nature to them. I don't know if anything really have been labelled a law in a longish time.
Upvote
0
I did more than that, and more than you did, I read the entire paper.
That paper I handed you is not 'utter junk'. You haven't cited a single mathematical flaw or any other actual flaw. In fact, all you did is JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, NOT read the paper, NOT check how many times it's been cited, NOT check if it's ACTUALLY been published, etc, before calling the guy an IDIOT. You aren't interested in honest debate or you would spend the necessary time to find some actual mathematical or physical or procedural flaw in his work. You won't. You don't have the time, therefore you engage in verbal abuse instead. Pitiful. How "Christian" of you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
