Why things like relativity and evolution aren't called laws?

[jaydnul]

I was reading in my textbook the definition of a scientific law: must be found experimentally valid over a wide range of observed phenomena. So why arent things like the theory of general relativity and the theory of evolution called the laws of evolution and the laws of relativity? Will that eventually happen? I think it would clear up some of the non scientist's nomenclatural confusion...

 

[256bits]

well I looked up Wikiepedia and this is what they say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories

Under the heading Theories and Laws

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

second paragraph:

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

 

[russ_watters]

Short answer: being a theory is the highest level of acceptance an idea in science can achieve. Laws are mathematical models that may or may not be physically accurate -- as in the case of Newton's law of gravity.

 

[Popper]

I was reading in my textbook the definition of a scientific law: must be found experimentally valid over a wide range of observed phenomena. So why arent things like the theory of general relativity and the theory of evolution called the laws of evolution and the laws of relativity? Will that eventually happen? I think it would clear up some of the non scientist's nomenclatural confusion...

It has to do with the precise meaning of those terms. The term theory in The Theory of Relativity is defined as follows;

Theory - Systematically organized knowledge, especially a set of assumptions or statements devised to explain a phenomena or class of phenomena.

Law or Postulate – A formulation or generalization based on observed phenomena or consistent experience.


It is in those senses of the terms that one can say that the special theory of relativity is based on two laws

Law 1: The laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames of reference

Law 2: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

 

[sardar]

I can understand the confusion around the terms "theory" and "law" in the context of scientific concepts like evolution and relativity. However, it is important to note that these terms have specific meanings in the scientific community.

In science, a theory is a well-supported explanation for a phenomenon that has been extensively tested and is supported by a large body of evidence. It is a comprehensive framework that can explain a wide range of observations and make predictions about future phenomena. Theories are not considered absolute truths, but they are the best explanations we have based on the available evidence.

On the other hand, a law in science is a statement or equation that describes a fundamental principle of nature that has been repeatedly confirmed through experiments. Laws are typically more specific and limited in scope compared to theories. They are often mathematical in nature and can be used to make precise predictions.

In the case of evolution and relativity, they are both well-established theories that have been extensively tested and supported by a vast amount of evidence. They are not considered laws because they are not specific mathematical equations or principles, but rather comprehensive explanations for complex phenomena.

It is also worth noting that the use of the term "law" in science has decreased in recent years, as scientists have come to understand that our understanding of nature is constantly evolving and subject to change. This is why we often use the term "theory" to describe well-established concepts, as it acknowledges that our understanding may continue to evolve as we gather more evidence.

In conclusion, while it may be helpful to use the term "law" to describe certain scientific concepts, it is important to understand the specific definitions and implications of these terms in the context of science. Evolution and relativity will likely continue to be referred to as theories, as they accurately reflect their status as well-supported explanations for complex phenomena.