Why don't people understand the difference between a theory and a law?

Question

The difference is important, and REALLY simple:
- A theory *explains* something.
- A law *describes* something.

A theory is also a *body* of many statements, while a law is a single statement (usually an equation) ... but the important thing is that they are two very different *types* of statement (one explanatory, the other descriptive). So a theory can never become a law, and a law can never become a theory.

Another example, the difference between "proof" and "evidence":
- You prove things in math.
- You don't 'prove' things in science ... you accumulate 'evidence.'

My question is, why are these concepts so hard to understand?

Why do school systems fail to teach the *basics* of science concepts? This is what 3rd Grade science should be about ... and yet you get High School kids, and adults ... who don't understand this. And if they don't, memorizing the stages of mitosis or the Kreb cycle is pointless if the kid goes on to be an adult who doesn't even know what science *is*.

This misunderstanding is the root of all "just a theory" arguments against things like the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory. Anti-science people throw the label "just a theory" at these concepts, but fail to acknowledge that ALL explanatory systems in science are called theories (the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory or the solar system, the atomic theory of matter), and these are all held with high confidence by the consensus of scientists.

Second this misunderstanding is behind using a term like the "theory of intelligent design" as an alternative "theory". This misses the point that intelligent design doesn't actually *explain* anything. (I.e. it doesn't break down complex questions in terms of simpler concepts, but instead replaces them with a *more* complex question ... nature of the "designer").

Frank N wrote; "Only when the preponderance of evidence points one way should science begin to take sides."

That is precisely why science comes down overwhelmingly in favor of the theory of evolution ... preponderance of the evidence.

The theory of evolution does *not* address the question of the origin of life. Yes, you are right that this is where science is still considering various theories ... but intelligent design is not one of them.

Intelligent design is simply *NOT* on equal footing with evolution. It is not even a theory ... it is a set of questions and criticisms .. but ID itself offers no answers, no explanations. It looks at something like the eye and says that evolution cannot explain it, but postulating an intelligent designer does ... but it does precisely the opposite of what an explanation does ... it replaces a complex origin question (the eye) with a far more complex and mysterious one (intelligent design). This is not explanation. This is not science.

Answer 1

I agree with much of what you say, but it's not a difference we could expect grade 3's to pick up on, even if some do. They could parrot back the proper use of each, but would they really understand the abstract concepts that each definition refers to?
A big reason is that people use these words almost interchangeably in conversation. They're wrong to do so, but there's almost never a consequence for making that mistake in conversation, and so they don't learn the difference, let alone the hard-headed misconceptions it can fan.

It's the same reason adverbs are becoming an endangered species, as Apple encourages us to "Think Different," or when you ask your buddy how he's doing, he says "good." The only way to keep adjectives from completely replacing adverbs would be to be a stickler - to stand up for and explain the differences.

The thing is, people often won't like being corrected by us smarty-pantses, and to avoid being unpopular with them we keep quiet and stick to bemoaning the problem in online fora (forums?). We can lay part of the blame at our own feet.

Answer 2

The semantic difference between theory and law is really unrelated to what you're concerned about. I agree, public education in the US does a poor job at teaching science and math, or even teaching people to think. But if you care about science, treat evolution and intelligent design as ideas on the same footing. Where does the evidence really lead? Don't just rule out the theory that you don't like. The vast majority of what can be called evolution is genuine science that isn't seriously challenged. The battle comes when you ask whether life first happened by design or by accident. We have proof or evidence for neither. Only when the preponderance of evidence points one way should science begin to take sides. Stand by what you claim are your own principles.

Answer 3

enable's see right here... Scientists end all count number got here into life on the enormous bang, and have a incredibly solid case for this concept. So one in all 2 issues is real: one million. count number got here into life from not something; it merely exceeded off. 2. count number became created by making use of somebody or something. In different words, there became a causative element. What does logic require right here? The acceptance of the extra logical and life like explanation. Can something come from not something? it quite is a actual stretch, even for evolutionists. Occam's razor argument helps the extra probable; a causation that could merely be defined because of the fact the act of a being who exists outdoors time and count number. yet once you reject logic, then consistent with probability you could clarify how life developed into 2 sexes and how sexual reproduction got here approximately. The evolutionary variety does not enable for any such progression.

Answer 4

I agree with every fact you said....
Its the same here in India too.
Basic fundamentals are very poorly taught and many of the students fail to grasp them which leads to huge problems later on if they pursue science.

Students are rather ignorant these days.

But I think it would have been better had you asked the question in the Polls and surveys section (mind that that's my personal opinion)

Answer 5

In my opinion that lack of understanding is either (or both) of the following:

Lack of correct and proper education of the students by folks who actually know the difference themselves.

Lack on the students' part to pay attention and/or understand.


That's really the gist of it in my opinion.