Law and Theory

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
E

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
4,320
Reaction score
36
Location
seattle, wa
In science, what is the difference between a law and a theory ? (for example 2nd Law of Thermodynamics vs Theory of Special Relativity)

Whoever gets the correct answer and tells me why, first, I will send them a BS version of Phrag waunakee wonder x waunakee sunset (postage paid, free of charge)
 
ehanes7612 said:
In science, what is the difference between a law and a theory ? (for example 2nd Law of Thermodynamics vs Theory of Special Relativity)

Whoever gets the correct answer and tells me why, first, I will send them a BS version of Phrag waunakee wonder x waunakee sunset (postage paid, free of charge)
Click to expand...

Is it that it a theory is just an idea and a law has been proven with tests, experiments or data for example.
 
Laws are based on sets of observations, and are only applicable to systems for which those observations are true; laws do not theorize a mechanism or a reason for being the case, they are the case based on a certain set of observations. Theories try to determine a mechanism by which all systems behave, even in systems without currently observable measurements.

The theory of special relativity, therefore tries without measurements to dictate the mechanism of behavior in all systems, whereas the second law of thermodynamics dictates that in closed Newtonian systems, entropy increases without determining a mechanism for its increase.
 
tim said:
Laws are based on sets of observations, and are only applicable to systems for which those observations are true; laws do not theorize a mechanism or a reason for being the case, they are the case based on a certain set of observations. Theories try to determine a mechanism by which all systems behave, even in systems without currently observable measurements.

The theory of special relativity, therefore tries without measurements to dictate the mechanism of behavior in all systems, whereas the second law of thermodynamics dictates that in closed Newtonian systems, entropy increases without determining a mechanism for its increase.
Click to expand...

you are defining falsifiability moreso than laws vs theory...special relativity does not work for a system based on gravity (hence , why Einstein came up with General Relativity..which in turn does not work for every system)
 
It would theorize that perceptions of gravity are actually curvature of space-time...and attempt to explain mechanistically any new system based on any other force...

And yes, scientific laws are universal statements based on inductive reasoning, which are deductively falsifiable.

Law is a description, and theory is an explanation.
 
tim said:
It would theorize that perceptions of gravity are actually curvature of space-time...and attempt to explain mechanistically any new system based on any other force...

And yes, scientific laws are universal statements based on inductive reasoning, which are deductively falsifiable.
Click to expand...

this is a matter for another topic of discussion..suffice it to say..it is not the reason why some scientific principles are called Laws and some Theories.
 
abax said:
Theory is hypothesis. Law is supposition based on social
expectations.

*I know there's a twist in this question somewhere or
other. Ed's tricky.
Click to expand...

yes, it is a trick question...and one that many science students and professors stump on by overthinking it, including me (it has a very simple answer that has nothing to do with logic or method)..and I studied the History of Science in the pursuit of my history degree years ago
 
Law= easily observable that is simple, obvious and indisputable.

Theory= based on a hypothesis that is plausible and can be supported through experimentation. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently tested, results repeated to convince many in the field of physics that the hypothesis can be used to make the most accurate predictions this becomes a theory. The more different varied experimentation done showing highly accurate prediction of natural phenomenon the more entrenched and excepted a theory become. A strong theory may even make predictions about natural phenomena we have yet to observe. Then when observed if proven right it strengthens the theory. Theory can never be proven right just strengthened. It can be disproven

Or even more simply law is description of what you observe and a theory is an explanation of what you observe based on hypothesis
 
Law=When you cross a white complex with a green you get white complexes
Theory-white complexi must be color suppressing. Let's make some crosses to test this theory. No many how many experiments you do you can not prove the theory absolutely. You can just build evidence and make predictions to support your theory.
 
Obviously Historically, there were more laws, but at the time there was no explanation for them. Now we have more theories to explain laws or the connection between laws.
 
paphioland said:
Law= easily observable that is simple, obvious and indisputable.

Theory= based on a hypothesis that is plausible and can be supported through experimentation. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently tested, results repeated to convince many in the field of physics that the hypothesis can be used to make the most accurate predictions this becomes a theory. The more different varied experimentation done showing highly accurate prediction of natural phenomenon the more entrenched and excepted a theory become. A strong theory may even make predictions about natural phenomena we have yet to observe. Then when observed if proven right it strengthens the theory. Theory can never be proven right just strengthened. It can be disproven

Or even more simply law is description of what you observe and a theory is an explanation of what you observe based on hypothesis
Click to expand...


your definition of a Law is ignoring the context of the society from which it sprung from. The ability to test the Lorentz force law or Law of Thermodynamics centuries ago was no easier than testing The Theory of Special relativity today (which is very easy to test)
 
paphioland said:
Obviously Historically, there were more laws, but at the time there was no explanation for them. Now we have more theories to explain laws or the connection between laws.
Click to expand...

Okay, I can see the answer in your statement, so I have consulted with my cat , and he agrees, you are the winner...basically, scientific principles were called Laws or Principles before 1905...starting in 1905 , all new principles were called Theories


send me your address
 
It was my understanding that a theory or principle was basically a supposition in need of proof. A law is one that has been proven to be true.
 
Ray said:
It was my understanding that a theory or principle was basically a supposition in need of proof. A law is one that has been proven to be true.
Click to expand...

that is what most people believe to be true but Theory of Special Relativity (muons, pions), Theory of General Relativity (GPS satellites) , Quantum Theory (iphones) have all been proven to be valid in specifc systems..Before 1900 , the use of the term Law was commonplace and prolific, and like paphioland remarked...was given to theories that had no to little valid evidentiary proof..It was a word that meant more to pre 1900 society than it does now. As much as people want to resist it (which is natural, people want to assign greater meaning to things...which is counter to modern science)..it's just a matter of semantics and a change in cultural preference
 

Similar threads

John M
New list of available plants; January, 2015
Replies
5
Views
1K
SlipperFan
SlipperFan
N
Efficient Sunritek T8-style LED
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
naoki
N

Latest posts

Back
Top