Do we understand the terms Scientific Law, Theory and Hypothesis?

Question

I'm going to put each definition in additional details, so bear with me. I think if we're going to discuss things like the "theory of gravity", "theory of evolution", et al.. we need to understand these definitions and not use layman's terms.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Answer 1

*sigh* by the answers I can tell they just won't quit.

Answer 2

Do we understand that a fact in science is not the same as a fact in mathematics hence we talk about the FACT of species evolution because the weight of evidence supporting it is so great it would be perverse to deny it occurs, and we talk about the THEORY of evolution only when discussing the biological mechanisms involved in species evolution. And specifically in response to the post above obviously speciation is observable and has been observed on countless occasions in laboratories in species such as fruit flies.

Answer 3

I think what you failed to inform us is that these definitions are all newly written, and 50 years ago the words meant something completely different. A theory has always been an unproven hypothesis, so we all recogonize that evolution was unproven. Now the word theory has been given a new difinition to mean something that is proven, and evolutionists expect everyone to accept that all of a sudden evolution is proven. You can't change the word and expect that to change the fact. A roses by any other name is still arose. If you change the definition of the word you should no longer call evolution a theory, it is still an unproven hypothesis.

Answer 4

Yes, and thank you for writing this. The problem is that so many of our teachers are clueless about how science works. These basics were taught to me in grade school in the 60s by a nun. When we take science for what it IS, it can co-exist with spirituality, and even religion. Only when people let their fears and biases lead them to turn off their God-given brains and powers of observation and embrace fundamentalism is there a problem.
BTW, fundamentalism is less than 2 centuries old.

If those who are so afraid of science agree to not use any of its fruits, like modern medicine, will they be morally consistent in what they say.

I've had otherwise sane, educated people insist to me that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, and that they fit in the specific "cubits" dimensions written. These same people state that radiocarbon dating is "just theoretical."

You'll never convince people whose eyes and ears are closed. That is why government should stay out of religion AND VICE VERSA.

Answer 5

definite, I comprehend it. Took universal technological know-how, biology, chemistry and astronomy in severe college and astronomy in college. So I do comprehend the theory. Mythos, what fact are you touching on? @ Jeremy: And germ concept and universal relativity are what? @ pal R: It wasn't Darwin who proved his concept, yet later generations because of the fact the main in all probability source and clarification for the ameliorations of creatures in the international. There are actually not any "suitable theories" as theories could be disputed and "erased" via the medical community could new data arise disputing the previous concept (Helio vs Geocrentrism). @ cadisneygirl: Such human beings could be kicked out of the medical community. As for manipulating archives, the creationists have performed that lots to make it look that creationism is technological know-how while it needless to say isn't. @ Jack: technological know-how ameliorations with the data. technological know-how can on no account be static. @ d: tutor to me that God exists because of the fact the load of knowledge is on you and another believer. @ myth2bu: greater being? Feh. we've seen animals evolve, that's not significant in the event that they're greater beings or not, animals nevertheless evolve. @ Eric the super: Your first fact is mindless. Your 2d fact has no pertaining to evolution because it says not something on how existence got here into being. @ Hippie!: No, medical theories won't be able to be utilized to faith as faith won't be able to be disproved (which medical theories could be). @ DMG: medical theories are religions onto themselves? HA! discover me a gravitationist. discover me a germologist. guess you won't be able to.

Answer 6

When people say "Evolution is just a theory", what they really mean is "Evolution is just a hypothesis", which it is not, because evolution has already been tested against the evidence countless times and never refuted.

Answer 7

There are too many different applications of the "scientific method" to define as closely as you have.

You'll need to cover both quantitative and non-quantitative disciplines, exact and theoretical sciences, measurable and non-measurable observations.

This is one of the greatest single errors on the part of evolutionists. The development of species is actually not observable, but that doesn't stop us from extrapolating from today's conditions and applying what we see to any period in the past as if conditions were the same.

That would be an unverifiable assumption and really bad science.

Answer 8

i was wondering if u were going somewhere with this ... i dont have a problem with theories and using them to understand things .. what bugs me is when conclusions are reached and accepted as fact based on theory ... i mean .. is science a tool or a religeon ..

Answer 9

People who believe in "creationism" don't believe anything else besides taking an ancient Jewish holy book literally as a history book, anything which contradicts that one book is a conspiracy lie to them.

That should sum it up.

Every other normal thinking person should know what those scientific terms mean.
--It's remedial science.

Answer 10

i understand them perfectly, many people do not accept something because of their strong (right or wrong) convictions