A scientific theory is something that has been tested and there is a general idea of. A scientific law is something that has proven itself, and is agreed, to be a thing that is part of natural order, it can never change. On the other hand, a scientific theory can still change because it is not completely agreed on and is not totally proven. While a scientific theory can change when someone finds enough evidence to change it, a scientific law has already been tested and proven many times so it could get that status. This is why scientific theories and laws are different.
An interesting thought.
You have provided a reasonable understanding of the distinction between scientific theories and laws. Allow me to explain further and delve into the process by which scientific theories and laws are developed.
In the realm of science, theories and laws both play crucial roles, but they are distinct in nature. The fundamental distinction lies in the level of evidence and certainty associated with each.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on empirical evidence. Theories are developed through the scientific method, which involves observations, experimentation, and repeated testing. These rigorous processes help scientists gather evidence that supports their hypothesis, leading to the formation of a theory.
A theory is not merely guesswork or speculation; it is a comprehensive and coherent framework that explains numerous observations and has stood up to extensive scrutiny. To reach the status of a scientific theory, the hypothesis must be repeatedly tested and supported by various lines of evidence. However, it is important to note that scientific theories are always subject to modification or revision if new evidence arises.
On the other hand, scientific laws are generalized descriptions of how a particular phenomenon behaves under certain conditions, often expressed through mathematical equations. Unlike theories, scientific laws do not explain the underlying mechanism or cause of the phenomenon; they only describe what will happen under specific circumstances.
Scientific laws are derived from repeated observations and empirical evidence, just like theories. However, laws are more concise and have a narrower scope than theories. They describe a particular pattern or behavior that is consistently observed and can be mathematically expressed.
The distinction between theories and laws lies in the level of certainty and the degree to which they can be modified. Laws, once established, have a high level of confidence and have been extensively tested and replicated. They are considered to be fundamental truths about the natural world and are widely accepted by the scientific community.
Theories, on the other hand, are more flexible and subject to revision as new evidence emerges. They provide comprehensive explanations of phenomena, but they are not considered absolute truths. Theories are dynamic and can evolve as new data, experiments, and observations challenge or refine our understanding.
In summary, scientific theories are well-substantiated explanations that incorporate a wide range of evidence and have withstood extensive testing. They provide comprehensive frameworks for understanding natural phenomena but can still be modified or refined when new evidence emerges. Scientific laws, on the other hand, describe specific patterns or behaviors in a concise and mathematical manner. They have a higher level of certainty and are considered to be fundamental principles of nature that have been extensively tested and replicated.