Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
theory vs. law - I think I finally put my finger on it!
A '''scientific theory''' is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable [[phenomena]].
A '''scientific theory''' is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable [[phenomena]]. While a [[scientific law]] describes something that always happens in the same, way a scientific [[theory]] explains what causes it to do so.
For example, doctors have long known that being near a person who has a communicable disease exposing you to a risk of catching it (see [[quarantine]]). It was a "law" of [[contagion]] that staying far away protected you from catching the disease, even before Pasteur' [[germ theory of disease]] provided the modern scientific explanation.
It is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with [[empirical]] data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref> Controversially, some scientists have declared that causes other than natural, observable ones should not be examined - and that theories involving such causes are "not scientific", e.g., [[behavioral psychology]]. This limitation and its implications for the [[philosophy of science]] plays a large role in the [[origins debate]].
It is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with [[empirical]] data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref> Controversially, some scientists have declared that causes other than natural, observable ones should not be examined - and that theories involving such causes are "not scientific", e.g., [[behavioral psychology]]. This limitation and its implications for the [[philosophy of science]] plays a large role in the [[origins debate]].