A class member recently asked me what the difference is between a theory and a law. \u00a0I believe this is a very common confusion, usually stemming from a popular view that a scientific theory is “just a theory”, implying it is less than likely to be true. \u00a0Similarly a “law” is loosely viewed as some form of universal and inviolable truth.<\/p>\n
Here is my understanding (after some reflection) on what these terms mean. \u00a0Let us start with a sketch of what human knowledge is and the process by which it is accumulated. \u00a0I will preface what follows by saying that I am discussing what is commonly called “scientific knowledge”, that is, knowledge obtained through the observations achieved with our human senses, and then acted upon by human reason. \u00a0This statement does not exclude the use of instruments with which we may collect information, but we ultimately receive that information into our rational mind through our senses.<\/p>\n
The senses present information to our minds. Our minds then group these sensory perceptions into clusters of similar observations. \u00a0When enough similar observations have been made to understand what they have in common, our minds replace the individual observations with a concept. A concept is a mental representation of a group of similar things which share common defining features. For example, after observing a series of objects which have four wheels, are self-propelled and carry individual or small groups of people over a paved surface, we will replace those observations with the concept “car”.<\/p>\n
The detail of this process of concept formation is a major topic in itself which could fill many pages.\u00a0 It applies not only to simple concrete objects, but also to ideas at all levels of abstraction.\u00a0 Not only the concepts of \u201capple\u201d, \u201cdog\u201d, and \u201chouse\u201d, but ideas like \u201clove\u201d, \u201calgebra\u201d, and \u201cgravitation\u201d as well.\u00a0 The concepts that are not directly reflected in objects we may refer to as abstract concepts.\u00a0 The observations leading to these concepts are our recognition of other, lower-level, concepts.\u00a0 So, for example, the concept of \u201cfruit\u201d comes from recognizing that the concepts of \u201capple\u201d, \u201corange\u201d, \u201cbanana\u201d, and so on share common features.<\/p>\n
When we start observing the relationships between concepts, and in particular relationships of cause and effect, we have reached the starting point for the creation of scientific theory.\u00a0 A phenomenon is observed requiring explanation \u2013 the cause for the observed effect is sought.\u00a0 After observing some number of occurrences of the phenomenon (A), we may find a common event that occurs at or before each occurrence (B).\u00a0 From these repeated observations, we can form a hypothesis that B causes the occurrence of A.\u00a0 At this level of development, we may have many different hypotheses attempting to explain the same phenomenon.<\/p>\n
Here is an example.\u00a0 A hot plate of glass dropped into cold water will shatter.\u00a0 After observing this to occur for a small number of identical cases, we develop the following hypotheses to explain the breaking of the glass:\u00a0 (A) Water breaks glass.\u00a0 (B) The impact of the glass onto the surface of the water breaks the glass.\u00a0 (C) A chemical reaction occurs between hot glass and cold water which breaks the glass.\u00a0 (D) The difference in the temperature between the glass and the water causes the glass to break.\u00a0 Each of these hypotheses is valid based on the observed events, as possible explanations for what has been observed.\u00a0 They are, however, only hypotheses at this point because they have not been tested, nor compared carefully against the rest of our knowledge about the world.<\/p>\n
We next perform some experiments to attempt to validate each of these hypotheses.\u00a0 Experiment (1): We take a hot glass plate and drop it into cold gasoline; the glass shatters.\u00a0 Experiment (2): We slowly pour cold water over a hot glass plate; the glass shatters.\u00a0 Experiment (3): We drop a room-temperature glass plate into cold water; the glass does not break.\u00a0 Experiment (4): We place a hot plate in a cold freezer; the glass shatters.<\/p>\n
Experiment (1) makes hypotheses (A) and (C) unlikely.\u00a0 Experiment (3) confirms that hypothesis (A) is not correct.\u00a0 Experiment (2) makes hypothesis (B) untrue.\u00a0 Experiment (4) indicates that (C) is even less likely, and confirms hypothesis (D).\u00a0 Now, after a set of carefully designed experiments have been completed, hypothesis (D) can be considered to be a theory instead of a hypothesis.\u00a0 The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is the observation of experiments which confirm the hypothesis, while eliminating alternative explanations.\u00a0 Typically scientific experiments are designed and controlled to progressively narrow the number of alternative explanations by attempting to change one related variable at a time.<\/p>\n
At this level of verification, we have a scientific theory, but not a law.\u00a0 Comprehending the difference requires an understanding of how human knowledge is properly accumulated.\u00a0 To be accepted as scientific knowledge requires that not only is the theory seen to be true experimentally, but that it is logically consistent with the current body of accumulated scientific knowledge.\u00a0 This generally requires the completion of two processes.\u00a0 The new theory must not be contradicted by the existing scientific knowledge, and it must be shown that either the theory fundamentally expands upon the existing knowledge \u2013 \u00a0it is not logically related to the existing knowledge \u2013 or it can be explained using the existing knowledge.<\/p>\n
These conditions may seem to preclude revolutionary scientific advances \u2013 the Copernican revolution, or Einstein\u2019s theory of gravitation for example.\u00a0 It may similarly seem to contradict my conviction that the existing regime of \u201cmodern physics\u201d, based upon the quantum theory and the Standard Model, will be overturned in the future.\u00a0 However, this is not at all the case.\u00a0 The presumption of the scientific method as outlined is that it has been consistently followed throughout the development of the existing body of scientific knowledge that the new theory appears to challenge.\u00a0 But there have been large segments of scientific development that have failed to adhere to the scientific method.<\/p>\n
The most common error within the historical body of scientific knowledge is the failure to base science solely upon observed facts and data.\u00a0 Far too often some other, non-scientific, source of information has been used to set the groundwork upon which a scientific theory is constructed.\u00a0 Historically, the most common non-scientific sources have been religious.<\/p>\n
The geocentric theory to explain the motions of the celestial bodies was originally based upon a mixture of observation and assumptions about the nature of the astronomical objects involved.\u00a0 Basic observations would suggest that the Earth lies motionless with the celestial objects rotating around it daily; however, when details of the motions of the planets and the Sun were measured with increasing accuracy, the defense of the geocentric theory rapidly turned from being based upon observations to being based upon mystical beliefs in the divinity, and therefore perfection, of the celestial objects.\u00a0 Bruno, Copernicus and Galileo did not need to defend their theories against science, but against the Church.<\/p>\n
The mystical thread in the development of astronomy did not end with Galileo.\u00a0 Kepler accepted the Copernican system with great reluctance, and hampered his own success in determining the actual motions of the planets by adamantly insisting that the orbits were circular, because of the presumed divinity of the planets and the necessary perfection of their motions.\u00a0 During his struggles to solve the problems of planetary motion he oscillated between difficult scientific investigations and lengthy whimsical fantasies based purely upon a quest for religious revelation.\u00a0 Even Isaac Newton, inventor of calculus and the \u201claw\u201d of gravity, believed the planets to be living beings, and presumed the existence of a Prime Mover.<\/p>\n
Einstein\u2019s theories \u2013 both special relativity and general relativity (a new law of gravitation) did not invalidate prior science, but rather were revolutionary for dramatically expanding upon existing theory without creating contradictions.\u00a0 The general theory of relativity in particular was a re-statement of existing theory from a completely new perspective, which then allowed an enormous expansion of the ability of science to explain phenomena which had been observed and had been difficult or impossible to explain within the existing framework of physics.<\/p>\n
But modern physics is far from having removed the effects of non-scientific thinking.\u00a0 Quantum mechanics, developed in the 1920\u2019s and 1930\u2019s, sought to explain recently observed facts and data, but did so starting from outside existing scientific theory.\u00a0 The origins of the quantum theory lie in a new set of assertions not derived from existing science, and lying in direct contradiction to the most fundamental assumptions of physics.\u00a0 The new theory is capable of explaining a vast variety of experimental observations \u2013 as such it does qualify as a theory using the definition I have stated earlier.\u00a0 However, all attempts to resolve the enormous contradictions that quantum theory brings against the fundamental elements of science have ended in failure, or emphatic denial that the contradictions need to be resolved.<\/p>\n
There are two core contradictions between quantum mechanics and the rest of established science; both are severe and extraordinarily fundamental.\u00a0 Science presumes that every entity in the universe has definite and precise quantitative features.\u00a0 An object has a location in space which it occupies.\u00a0 An event occurs at a particular moment in time.\u00a0 Man and therefore Science may be limited in its ability to know the values of these aspects of an object \u2013 and the limitation may even be a fundamental limitation which is physically impossible to overcome.\u00a0 But quantum mechanics denies that there are specific values for some attributes (such as position and time), and that this lack of specificity is not a lack of knowledge, but that no specific values actually exist.<\/p>\n
Science also presumes that all phenomena are caused by other phenomena \u2013 the law of causality.\u00a0 Quantum mechanics explicitly denies this, and replaces the law of causality with probabilistic rules.\u00a0 Quantum events are fundamentally uncertain and undetermined.\u00a0 Attempts to develop interpretations for quantum mechanics that allow for the law of causality to be retained evolve into a variety of absurdities, the best known being the \u201cmany universes\u201d interpretation, in which every event causes a divergence into multiple universes dependent on the actual outcome \u2013 many in this sense is an insanely large number.<\/p>\n
Returning to our main topic, a theory that does successfully integrate into the existing body of (truly) scientific knowledge, is shown not to be in contradiction with that knowledge, and which is either explained within its context, or advances a new viewpoint which expands the basis for scientific knowledge will attain the designation of a scientific law.\u00a0 A law in this sense implies that its falsification would entail a major disruption in our most fundamental understanding of the meaning of science, and is therefore scientifically impossible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A class member recently asked me what the difference is between a theory and a law. \u00a0I believe this is a very common confusion, usually stemming from a popular view that a scientific theory is “just a theory”, implying it is less than likely to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science-philosophy-of-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":181,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163\/revisions\/181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nutmegfamilies.com\/aaronnturner\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}