At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
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.
What do you think??
they do explain,:)
really? are you sure i remmber learning laws just state things in nature not explain
really !! they are proven :)
read the options again :)
Scientific laws were theories that have been tested, proven, and adopted as laws.
it can't be D are you sure
yeah, like the atomic model It was tested and proven
but its still a theory
nope, it's proven. just like the universal law of gravitation
the answer isnt D its B
a law doesn't explain
laws never become theories and theories never become laws
@ash2326 i think you should correct your self
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"
proven with experiments and observations *
@J-Monstur thank you im not going crazy lol
@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.
noooooooooo @ash2326 laws never become theories and theories never become laws
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.
I would say it's more of D though if you're looking at it from a scientific perspective
@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
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
Technically it could be A. Cause these are what scientists are saying to explain natural phenomenons revolving around experimentations that have been done
no there not opinions they are facts that no one can go against
if some one can go against it with a differnt opinion than its a theory
I just read something, I think A is more appropriate Sorry @sara1234 @J-Monstur
LAW CANNOT BECOME THEORY THEORY CANNOT BECOME LAW
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
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:
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
Law is a It is an observation of the natural world that has been proven as fact.
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.
@dianosaur someone understand me
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
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
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.
@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
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.
Oh My God This Was A Easy Question Come On!