Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations and logic.
We often come up with multiple hypotheses to explain an observation, we just eliminate the ones that are wrong. What's left over is not a theory or a law or an 'ultimate truth', it's just a possible explanation for something, one that can lead us to new hypothesis, which we may agree or disagree with the original one. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory. Though hypotheses and theories are often confused, theories are the result of a tested hypothesis. While hypotheses are ideas, theories explain …show more content…
If there's one fault in certain theory we don't discard whole theory but we correct it and improve it to make it even more righter.
Law:
A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens.
A scientific law is much more flexible. It can have exceptions, be proven wrong or evolve over time.
We have to revise laws if we discover some unexpected information and factors. and we have to make new theories to justify it. Upon further research scientists tend to favor the theory that can explain most of the data.
A law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research. A theory will never grow up into a law.
Example:
Fact: If I drop an apple, it'll
We often come up with multiple hypotheses to explain an observation, we just eliminate the ones that are wrong. What's left over is not a theory or a law or an 'ultimate truth', it's just a possible explanation for something, one that can lead us to new hypothesis, which we may agree or disagree with the original one. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory. Though hypotheses and theories are often confused, theories are the result of a tested hypothesis. While hypotheses are ideas, theories explain …show more content…
If there's one fault in certain theory we don't discard whole theory but we correct it and improve it to make it even more righter.
Law:
A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens.
A scientific law is much more flexible. It can have exceptions, be proven wrong or evolve over time.
We have to revise laws if we discover some unexpected information and factors. and we have to make new theories to justify it. Upon further research scientists tend to favor the theory that can explain most of the data.
A law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research. A theory will never grow up into a law.
Example:
Fact: If I drop an apple, it'll