What is the difference between a law and a theory?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter student34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference Law Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the distinction between scientific laws and theories, exploring their definitions, implications, and the philosophical underpinnings related to their usage in physics. Participants examine the nuances of these concepts, referencing historical perspectives and contemporary interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a theory does not need to be 100% consistent, unlike a law, which raises questions about the nature of truth in scientific theories.
  • One participant references Karl Popper's work, suggesting that laws may be unfalsifiable despite being widely verified, while theories are subject to falsification.
  • Another participant argues that the term "law" in physics has become outdated, suggesting that many concepts traditionally labeled as laws would be better described as equations.
  • It is noted that scientific theories are complex bodies of knowledge that often require extensive explanation, unlike laws that can typically be stated succinctly.
  • Concerns are raised about the concept of falsification, with examples illustrating that theories are often modified rather than discarded when they conflict with reality.
  • One participant introduces the term "ad hockery" to describe the practice of tweaking theories in response to discrepancies with observed reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of scientific laws and theories, with no consensus reached on the matter. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions of laws and theories, including the dependence on historical context and the evolving nature of scientific understanding. The discussion also reflects on the applicability of laws in specific domains and the tendency to adjust theories rather than abandon them.

student34
Messages
639
Reaction score
21
I understand the difference in biology because a theory does not have to be consistent 100% of the where a law does. But because I have often heard physicists say that even theories have to always be true, then I really have no idea what the difference could be.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The difference between a (scientific) law and theory is the topic of Karl Popper's 1934, tr.1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery and the core of Lee Smolin's thesis, as in his 2006 popularized The Trouble with Physics.

In general, a law may be not falsifiable though vastly verified, while a theory is raised for falsification, its verification being worthless.

This is the controversy over the use of statistics in science, over frequentism versus Bayesianism and at the heart of QBism - the Bayesian personalist interpretation of Quantum Mechanics..
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Doug Huffman said:
The difference between a (scientific) law and theory is the topic of Karl Popper's 1934, tr.1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery and the core of Lee Smolin's thesis, as in his 2006 popularized The Trouble with Physics.
This misses the mark.

The term "law" in physics has gone out of style. Physicists still use the term for older concepts that were labeled as laws. Ohm's law, for example, is still called Ohm's law. Ohm's law is V=IR. Using a more modern lexicon, that would be better labeled as "Ohm's equation". Newton's Principia (a theory) included a small number of underlying equations, his laws of motion and law of gravitation. Einstein's theory of general relativity also includes a small number of underlying equations. Physicists just call those equations the Einstein field equations. In days of yore, those field equations would most likely have been called Einstein's law of gravitation.

In physics, a law typically is an equation, one which may have limited applicability. Ohm's law is a good example. Batteries, capacitors, inductors, and rectifiers don't follow Ohm's law. Neither do resistors after having had too much current pushed through them. Resistors become non-ohmic once they start emitting smoke.

A scientific theory is a tested body of knowledge that typically cannot be summarized in a tweet. (In contrast, most laws can be stated in full in a single tweet on twitter.com.) Oftentimes a book (e.g., Newton's Principia, Darwin's On the Origin of Species) is needed to convey the concepts of a scientific theory.


Regarding Popper, his idea of falsification, while good, also misses the mark. Despite the fact that many electrical devices are markedly non-ohmic, electrical engineers still use Ohm's law to describe resistors. Despite the fact that relativity theory and quantum mechanics falsify Newtonian mechanics, civil engineers still use Newtonian mechanics in designing bridges, roads, and buildings, and aerospace engineers still use Newtonian mechanics in designing and operating spacecraft . Falsification is a naive concept. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics didn't falsify Newtonian mechanics. They instead showed that Newtonian mechanics is not universally true. It is still quite valid in a limited (but very useful) domain.

Another area where Popper's falsification fails is when a theory is shown to disagree with reality. More often than not, the theory is tweaked rather than discarded. Darwin's theory of evolution has been tweaked a number of times, first with the modern synthesis, then with genetics, and more lately with epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer. Quantum theory similarly has been tweaked a number of times. Quantum mechanics supplanted the old quantum theory, protons and neutrons moved from the class of elementary particles to composite particles with quantum chromodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics added even more weirdness to quantum theory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
"Tweaking" is called ad hockery by Edwin Thompson Jaynes.
 
Doug Huffman said:
"Tweaking" is called ad hockery by Edwin Thompson Jaynes.

And when you're running a business or driving a boat it's called "course correction"... Just about any statement about the behavior of the world will benefit from a comparison with reality.

I also think that we've answered OP's question and gotten as much juice out of this thread as we can.
PM me if you think there's more to say here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
457
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
915
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K