Misconception about Theories and Laws (Nature of Science) Essay

Misconception about Theories and Laws (Nature of Science) - Essay Example The lack of absolute truth in science validates the existence of laws. Laws in science refer to systematically generalized observation. From such observations, scientists make particular patterns thus developing a law on the behavior and manifestation of the observations (Hanzel 121). Scientific laws have no exceptions; such is a vital feature that proves scientific laws. The law of gravity is one of the most phenomenal scientific laws. In making the law, Isaac Newton observed the behavior of falling objects. He observes that objects must always fall and that their speed intensifies as they near the ground. His theory can only predict that objects must always fall to the ground. However, the theory does not explain why they fall. Scientific theories on the other hand are summaries of existing and tested hypothesis. Scientific theories rely on the quality of the supporting tests that prove their factuality. This implies that a scientific theory survive only for as long as there is no any other evidence to disprove them. With effective supporting evidence, a theory explains a phenomenon. Such is a major difference between a theory and a law. Scientific laws predict phenomenon while theories explain the phenomenon. The two are therefore interrelated but each exists and functions independently with its own set of supporting evidence. Among the most common scientific theories is the big bang theory (Gregersen 66). The theory explains the origin of the earth by explaining that the universe formed 14million years ago following an event of gigantic expansion. Numerous scientists have researched the theory and found substantial evidence to prove its factuality. In 1965 for example, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson disc overed radiations arising from cosmic microwave they believe arose from the expansion process. In retrospect, theories and laws are distinct bodies of knowledge in science. The two have systematic evidence to prove their existence. As explained earlier,