Quantcast

Got Homework?

Connect with other students for help. It's a free community.

  • across
    MIT Grad Student
    Online now
  • laura*
    Helped 1,000 students
    Online now
  • Hero
    College Math Guru
    Online now

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

sara1234

Which statement best describes scientific laws

  • one year ago
  • one year ago

  • This Question is Closed
  1. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Scientific laws are scientists' opinions of why events occur in nature. Scientific laws describe specific relationships in nature without offering an explanation. Scientific laws explain why natural events occur. Scientific laws were theories that have been tested, proven, and adopted as laws.

    • one year ago
  2. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    What do you think??

    • one year ago
  3. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    B

    • one year ago
  4. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    they do explain,:)

    • one year ago
  5. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    really? are you sure i remmber learning laws just state things in nature not explain

    • one year ago
  6. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    really !! they are proven :)

    • one year ago
  7. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    than C

    • one year ago
  8. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    read the options again :)

    • one year ago
  9. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Scientific laws were theories that have been tested, proven, and adopted as laws.

    • one year ago
  10. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    it can't be D are you sure

    • one year ago
  11. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yeah, like the atomic model It was tested and proven

    • one year ago
  12. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    but its still a theory

    • one year ago
  13. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    nope, it's proven. just like the universal law of gravitation

    • one year ago
  14. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    the answer isnt D its B

    • one year ago
  15. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    a law doesn't explain

    • one year ago
  16. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    laws never become theories and theories never become laws

    • one year ago
  17. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @ash2326 i think you should correct your self

    • one year ago
  18. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Like sara said, the atomic model isn't completely explained, it's just a theory as of right now and it so just happens that there are certain trends that can be proven with tested and "proven observations"

    • one year ago
  19. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    proven with experiments and observations *

    • one year ago
  20. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @J-Monstur thank you im not going crazy lol

    • one year ago
  21. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @J-Monstur it was just an example, but every theory which is tested and proven with experiment is a law. Galileo predicted that sun is the center of the solar system which was proven and tasted later, it's kinda law. Newton predicted that there is a force existing between every object, which was tested and proved, which is called Universal Law of Gravitation.

    • one year ago
  22. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    *tested

    • one year ago
  23. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    noooooooooo @ash2326 laws never become theories and theories never become laws

    • one year ago
  24. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Although there are links between these natural phenomenons, scientific laws are established as universally applicable theories deduced through experimentation but aren't necessarily definitive. I never said ash was wrong cause they are tested and somewhat proven.It seems like the mix of B and D in my opinion.

    • one year ago
  25. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I would say it's more of D though if you're looking at it from a scientific perspective

    • one year ago
  26. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @sara1234 because you have the idea of atomic theories, that's why you are reluctant to theory becoming laws. I'll explain you with one more example

    • one year ago
  27. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    no need if they are something natural that happens its a law like the sun comes up from one side and down from another thats a fact no one can go against that a theroy can also be proven but never becomes a law it stays a theory

    • one year ago
  28. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Technically it could be A. Cause these are what scientists are saying to explain natural phenomenons revolving around experimentations that have been done

    • one year ago
  29. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    no there not opinions they are facts that no one can go against

    • one year ago
  30. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    if some one can go against it with a differnt opinion than its a theory

    • one year ago
  31. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    LAW=FACT

    • one year ago
  32. ash2326
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I just read something, I think A is more appropriate Sorry @sara1234 @J-Monstur

    • one year ago
  33. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    LAW CANNOT BECOME THEORY THEORY CANNOT BECOME LAW

    • one year ago
  34. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    But Laws are based on what we as humans can only prove. So it's either A or D in my opinion. Not meant to cause a ruckus or anything

    • one year ago
  35. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    You can't just define Scientific Law as a fact because the epitome of the word that humans made up for it means that it is a fact. But if you believe it is B then that is your opinion and I fully respect that c:

    • one year ago
  36. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    it can't be A because a law is not based on opinions Cant be C because laws don't explain cant be D because laws can't become theroys and therorys can't become laws

    • one year ago
  37. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Law is a It is an observation of the natural world that has been proven as fact.

    • one year ago
  38. dianosaur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    In my opinion, I would say it's B. Scientific laws are made from observations done by scientists in the past. They were able to describe a relationship between certain things, hence they became a "law" But, no scientists can provide an explanation as to "Why" or "how" it occurred. The answer A and C would be more of a theory, because scientists would be trying to explain and provide a reason as to why something occurred. Answer D seems close but once again, scientific laws aren't "proven" but "observed" So I would say B's most accurate.

    • one year ago
  39. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @dianosaur someone understand me

    • one year ago
  40. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    There still is an explanation to a certain degree though but if you're taking the phrases as literal as it is, option B says WITHOUT an explanation

    • one year ago
  41. sara1234
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    there is no explanation there is a big difference between describe and explain laws describe but do not explain that's one of the big difference between laws and theroys

    • one year ago
  42. J-Monstur
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Both laws and theories are definitions made up in the human language but if B is what you feel like is correct then I think this discussion is over since there isn't a way to further sway you away from your judgement.

    • one year ago
  43. ganeshie8
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @sara1234 you hav correct understanding. Law A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. this site is reliable http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm :p

    • one year ago
  44. Carl_Pham
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I would have said the last, if the word "proven" had instead been the phrase "passed the tests." Few scientists are fully comfortable with making formal statements that a law has been "proven," although they may easily speak that way informally. That's because "proof" has a very strong meaning in mathematics, which is the language scientists tend to use. Something is "proved" if it CANNOT logically be otherwise, and you can show this with mathematics. No physical law falls into that category, at least not yet (there are some who hope that the final structure of natural law will be shown to be the only one that is logically possible -- but this is far off). Hence the most popular philosophical approach to science is probably Karl Popper's, who says that science only disproves theories -- never proves them. That is, a scientific theory makes broad categorical statements ("Every foo does bar"). We put it to the test by trying out lots of foo, to see if each one does bar. If any one doesn't, then the theory has been proven false. But what if they all do? It could be the theory is true. But it could also be we haven't tested enough. We don't know (although we may suspect). So speaking formally, every scientific theory must be marked (by the results of experiment) as "false" or "not false." Still, the other candidate, the second statement, is also unsatisfying, because natural law does indeed offer copious explanations of phenomena. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation explains why the orbits of the planets are ellipses, and the orbits of comets are parabolas or hypebolas. Coulomb's Law explains why atoms are electrically neutral, and ultimately why magnesium is generally found on the Earth's crust as a carbonate while iron is found as a sulfide or oxide, and copper and gold are found as the native metals. This question was written by an amateur, unfortunately, and you will have to guess how he or she wants the question answered.

    • one year ago
    • Attachments:

See more questions >>>

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.