answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

A scientific theory cannot be proven correct because there is no way to look into the future and find out if the theory is ever revised. Theories tend to change greatly as new discoveries are made.

User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago

The "laws" are just rules of thumb for how thing act the way they do. All are approximations of the real world.

A theory is an attempt to explain why things work like they do.

Neither perfectly mimic the real world, but they're a lot closer than any other explanations currently available.
Scientific theories are tested. They are tested by studying and so it with dummies.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

6y ago

A scientific law is a statement that describes what scientists expect to happen every time under a particular set of conditions. Unlike a theory, a scientific law describes an observed pattern without attempting to explain it.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

You should understand that in science, laws are just part of theories. We do not have a hierarchy by which a theory, if it is good enough, gets promoted to the status of a law. Scientists call something a law because it expresses some scientific principle in a particularly succinct manner, not because it is necessarily more reliable than other theories. For example, science used to have a law of conservation of mass. Then it turns out that mass and energy are mutually convertible into each other (as described by Einstein's famous equation, e = mc2). So it turns out that mass is not always conserved. Now we have a new law called the law of conservation of mass-energy. And there is no reason why this law could not also be revised in light of new observations or calculations, in the future. Laws, like theories, can be changed. In science, they are not written in stone.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

Scientific theories are ideas about how the world works that are based on large amounts of accumulated data based on extensive observation and/or experiment. They attempt to explain the data by putting the particulars of observed phenomena into an intellectual framework. A scientific theory is a mental model of how the world works. Because scientific theories are based on myriad observed facts and they allow predictions about the universe to be made, (they can be tested), they are generally thought to represent human society's best underdstanding of the respective fields of study. In colloquial speech, 'theory' may mean little more than a guess, but in science, a theory is what is built after many hypotheses, (educated guesses), have been developed and tested.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Evolution is a theory, but theory in a scientific context. The theory of evolution is backed by mountain of facts, laws, and hypotheses from various disciplines of science. Other things that are theories include atomic theory and theory of relativity.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

A scientific theory has a different definition from a "general" theory of everyday use.

"Regular" theory (according to dictionary.com):

contemplation or speculation.

guess or conjecture.

Scientific theory:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Wile scientific laws describe general facts, a scientific theory describes why certain phenomena occur. For example, there is a law of gravity which states that gravity occurs, and there is also a theory of gravity which explains why it occurs (based on facts and evidence, of course)

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

Scientific theories must always be supported with facts and empirical evidence.

In fact, theory is used in other ways to. It can also just mean a body of facts. Example: Music Theory, art theory, etc. No one can deny that music or art exist, but in that context a "theory" is something that is taught.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

The definition of a Scientific Law is "a general statement that explains how the natural world behaves under certain conditions and not exceptions have been found." Maybe, in testing these ideas, the scientists have found an exception or two, but the idea is correct most of the time, not making it a law, but not proving it completely wrong.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

Theories explain physical phenomena, and are subject to test. If there is no way to test an idea, it is not a theory. If it can be tested, and passes the test, it becomes a good theory.

By convention, theories that have been extensively tested eventually become known as law. In science, theory is everything. An observation without a theoretical explanation is just some random fact. It is theory that incorporates that fact into a predictive narrative. Theory, therefore, successfully predicts outcomes of experiments. Theories that cannot produce successful predictions in the light of experimental outcomes are quickly abandoned in favor of those that can.

Added:

Theories DO NOT become laws but include law. We have Newton's law of gravity explained by Einstein's theories in gravity.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

The best evidence that theory is not just theory is that there is a traceable history of advances in knowledge and technology over the centuries. If theory did not somehow enlighten us, even partially, about the actual nature of the physical world, then it would not lead us to any new, useful or exciting ways of putting things together for our general good (and yes, some devastating mahem as well, from time to time). The history of advances should not be taken as evidence that knowledge always progresses in an orderly and step-by-step fashion; it does not.

The process of science is one of continuously honing in on a better and better grasp of the materials and processes that are around us. Now and then while this is going on, a spectacular new concept is developed, with lots and lots of new science following. The best known examples are general and special relativity, and quantum theory.

But there are many levels of theory. The broadest, most subtle and complex theories that try to explain the most fundamental realities, theories like relativity and quantum theory, are different in nature from a theory like: plants with green leaves need light to thrive. Absolutely no value judgement is made here about the science involved. The theory about plants and light can be proven, about as much as any theory can be, with a few basic and well designed experiments. Even in this case, a full explanation of each step involved is much harder to outline than most people might think. The broader theories are more difficult, if not impossible, to actually prove, and they are likely remain open to challenge for all of time, or until they are successfully refuted.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why are scientific theories said to be 'not just a theory'?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Chemistry

How can a scientific theory be proved true?

Bluntly, the answer is no. There are serious philosophical and logical problems with some of the underlying assumptions that one has to make in order to conclude that a theory is true. They are numerous and complex, and some study in the philosophy of science will bring some of this in perspective. Basically, all of science amounts to a heuristic-- a system that aids in the solution of various kinds of problems, but which is itself unverifiable and unprovable as valid. This should not be troubling. As long as people exist and remain curious about the world, they will ask questions and develop various ways to approach the answsers. In the long run, concepts with greater and greater predictive strength will develop, and they will lead to more questions. Ideally, some observable progress (at least from the point of view of the practitioners) will follow. People will, of course, ask questions based on what they can observe, and they will make conclusions based on their heuristic methods of observation. But absolute truth will ultimately elude us.One example of this heuristic is the idea that a theory must be falsifiable in order to be 'scientific' (as opposed to non-scientific). There are some serious reasons to doubt that falsifiability is a valid demarcation between science and non-science. One idea is that in order to claim that a theory is falsifiable, one must appeal to another theory, or set of heuristic observations, in order to do so. Since no theory can be proven to be absolutely true, what happens to the theory that falsifiability properly demarcates between science and non-science? This theory itself is part of the unvalidatable heuristic.For those of us who are deeply curious, this is reason for intense excitement. There will probably always be a reason to suspect (and sometimes even discover) new and world-changing views of reality. A good example is the progression of theories from Aristotle to Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr and the world of Quantum theory and mechanics. Theories always represent a creative tension between one theory and another theory/theories, NOT a tension between a theory and a prevailing body of actual fact. Everything is questionable.Alternative2:A scientific Theory can be "true" in the sense that it describes and predicts the way nature behaves. For example the Conservation of Electromagnetic Fields, 0=XB, decribes the behavior of electromagnetic fields: 0 = [db/dr -DEL.B, dB/dr + DEL b] = [db/dt - DEL.E, dB/dt + DEL e].The Book of Nature is written in mathematics and Mathematical Theories can truly describe nature, and in so doing are "True" Theories.Alternative 3:Whether expressed in mathematic terms or not all "true" theories are called Laws.


Will putting salt in a fire help prevent creosote in a fireplace?

I have the same question! Just had my chimney cleaned and the guy said there was no scientific evidence that it helped. For what it's worth, last years chimney cleaner told me to do it because it just might help.


Who proposed chemical evolution?

Probably Darwin but he also said that if something as small as an atom was more complex than us, then discard the evolutionary theory


What scientist said that matter can not be divided into smaller pieces?

Democritus in 400BC came up with the theory of the atom. His theories were not excepted until the 17th century. John Dalton then explained the atomic theory of matter: 1. All elements are made of atoms. 2. All atoms of the same element are identical, but differ from any atoms of a different element. 3. Atoms cannot be created or destroyed. 4. Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole number ratios. 5. Atoms can be combined, separated, or rearranged.


What was the point of Dalton atomic theory which is incorrect?

He said that atoms were indivisible, and we now know is not true because atoms are composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons, and that protons and neutrons are themselves composed of smaller particles. He also said that all of the atoms of the same element have the same mass, which we now know is not true because of the existence of isotopes.

Related questions

Why are scientific theories said to be just a theory?

People tend to say that scientific theories are "just" a theory because of a confusion between the common usage of "theory" and the scientific definition. (In everyday speech people often use the word "theory" in the sense of a "hunch" or "vague idea". This is not what the word means in a scientific context). A scientific theory is deduced from observations and is the simplest way of describing natural phenomena. It is testable, observable, predictable, and falsifiable. Scientific theories are not the same thing as hypotheses, which are explanations that haven't been demonstrated or verified. A scientific theory has evidence to back it up. The common usage of 'theory' suggests an explanation that someone hasn't proven, or isn't able to prove. It doesn't imply evidence that has been tested; it doesn't imply predictability. When someone hears, for example, "Big Bang theory" or "the theory of evolution", they may hear the word 'theory' and associate those scientific theories with someone's opinion or suggestion. In reality, these theories are the best scientific explanations for a myriad of phenomena across multiple scientific definitions. In science, "just a theory" is a very good place to be.


Are scientific theories based on scientific evidence?

By not being so much based on fact as explaining said facts. That is what scientific theories do, explain the facts and laws contained within them as far as possible. For example; evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much, not everything, about the fact of evolution.


In science what distinguishes a hypothesis from a theory?

A Hypothesis is a statement or objective one has set out to test or query. eg An unsupported object will fall when dropped. This can be proved or disproved through experimentation. After testing the above hypothesis multiple times (with a scientific method) one can deduce the statement that all unsupported objects fall when dropped. Through more study one can form a scientific theory to explain the happenings in the experimentation. Using the about example the theory of Gravity and its effect on objects can be formed. A scientific theory can be disproven after formation. TLDR: first comes unproven hypothesis, then after experimentation a scientific theory is formed.


Is evolutions falsificationable?

Falsifiable. Yes. As a famous population biologist once said, " show me fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian and you will have falsified evolution. " All scientific facts are falsifiable as well as all scientific theories. It once was a " fact " that the world was flat and it once was a theory that the universe was in steady state. Both falsified. Of course, no one has falsified evolution the fact, or the theory of evolution by natural selection.


What is the scientific name of clostridium botulinum?

You just said it.


A theory about the earth's structure?

There have been at least 2 major theories about the Earth's structure. Earth has been said to be both round and flat.


Why is heliocentric theory important?

It was the first theory that said that the universe does not revolve around the Earth; instead we revolve around the sun. It discredited many people's theories and modern belief at the time. It is also the proven theory that we believe in today.


What is the meaning of scientific failure?

When an experiment contradicts the outcome predicted by a theory, the theory is said to be a failure. The experiment itself, if poorly designed or conducted, may not achieve a result to distinguish between expected outcomes, in which case the experiment would be a failure. Even negative results in science have meaning. Failure generally leads to greater insight than does success, as flaws is theory reveal the need for improved theories.


What does the word theory?

If you look in a dictionary you will see a lot of big words and concepts when you look up the word theory. In lay terms a theory is an "educated guess" about a idea or issue or science concept. Example: The Darwin Theory. He "guessed" that we "evolved" from the amoeba all the way up to the humanity we have now. He said it was only a theory and it was an unproven one despite the people who came to believe it was a fact. Theories are ideas that have to be disproven or proven using scientific methods or educated methods.


What does the word theory mean?

If you look in a dictionary you will see a lot of big words and concepts when you look up the word theory. In lay terms a theory is an "educated guess" about a idea or issue or science concept. Example: The Darwin Theory. He "guessed" that we "evolved" from the amoeba all the way up to the humanity we have now. He said it was only a theory and it was an unproven one despite the people who came to believe it was a fact. Theories are ideas that have to be disproven or proven using scientific methods or educated methods.


Is the evolutionary theory bankrupt?

Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how living things evolved on this planet. If you're looking for a "bankrupt" theory a serious contender would be the unscientific theory of Creationism. It has absolutely no scientific currency to support it. However, as Ayn Rand said so eloquently: Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.


How does mill defend his theory when charged that hedonism is a theory for swine?

He said it is not me and my theories, it is you and yours. You who accuse my theories for swine, represent the human nature in a degrading light. Since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures execpt those of which swine are capable. -We laiter came to find this supposition to be fale.