+271 A theory isn't necessarily wrong, it has clear evidence/proof. What you don't understand is that theories do not become laws, a theory will remain a theory. Laws are observations (Objects fall towards earth), while theories explain them. Observation/Law: Animals change through time. Hypothesis/Theory: Natural selection causes evolution. amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to say.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Tried to say this in response to the post of the day, my comment would have been buried along the other 300+.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Now why isn't THIS the post of the day?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Finally, someone with some sense! And it's interesting that more people agree with this post, but more people also agreed on the post of the day. Go figure...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You don't understand the difference at all. A theory is something that someone thinks that has a little bit of evidence. Most theories are completely wrong. A law is a universal truth that can be proved true everywhere.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You certainly do not understand. A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. "A theory is something that someone thinks that has a little bit of evidence." A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. As I said before, it explains a law/observation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. Newton first described the law of gravity, and he used it to derive his theory/hypothesis on gravity. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity it completely upset Newton's theory of gravity. However, the law of gravity stayed the same. [You actually don't make much sense with "A theory is something that someone thinks that has a little bit of evidence."]

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, according to empiricists, there is no natural law. Since we have only experienced the phenomenon (ie. an apple falling from a tree), and not the actual reason (ie. gravity), we cannot say that there is a law of gravitation. Empiricists reason that there is no reason why an apple shouldn't not fall from a tree, only that we have experienced an apple falling so many times that we habitually assume that the apple will fall consistently. :D

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't understand what you are saying, it seems empiricism is tied with natural sciences. ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hey. guys. guess what. no one cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm sorry the public education system has failed you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago