Scientific Theory, Law & Fact

Scientists and laypersons use some important words differently.   In common usage, people use the word theory or hypothesis to mean a conjecture, an opinion, hypothesis, or a speculation.   Used this way, a theory is not necessarily based on facts and cause and effect relationships among facts.   Theory, hypothesis and facts are used differently by scientists.   However, if a scientist accepts the layperson's definitions, then he will often call many of his/her theories "laws" and "facts".

Scientific definitions:

Note 1: "Empirical" is used here in a sense of "natural" or "real", i.e., occupying space.
Note 2: "Statement" means a present indicative sentence about a cause & effect relationship, i.e., an "explanation" among things and events.
Note 3: A "fact" is an observed natural thing or event.   An apple falling is an observed fact.
Note 4: In science, all "facts" and "laws" are tentative, not dogmatic.   Facts and laws are constantly challenged by better facts and laws.
Note 5: A hypothesis is a statement assumed to be true for the purpose of testing of its truth or falsity.

An empirical hypothesis is a statement tentatively assumed to be true for the purpose of proof by testing.

Empirical proof = total of the evidence (= data = communicated sensations as interpretated by the brain) and deductive and inductive (statistical) logic ("reasoning") that supports the hypothesis.   Evidence varies in quantity and quality.   It depends on the competence of the tester too.   That is why witnesses often believe in contrary facts about events.   That is why, in scientific experiments, corroboration (verification) by other competent testers is essential.

Definition: An empirical theory is a statement supported by some proof.   Examples are Theory of Evolution (organismic, geological, astronomical), Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity Theory, General Relativity Theory, all of which have considerable proof.   Some theories are supported by little proof, i.e., String Theory, Memetic Theory.   Theory is also used to describe several cause & effect relationships among a group of individual theories, laws and facts, e.g., Orgnism Evolution.

Definition: An empirical law is a statement supported by considerable proof.   Examples are Law of Gravity, Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics, Hooke's Law of Elasticity.   To the layperson, laws are sometime called facts.

Note: "Some" and "considerable" (much) are adjectives and therefore subjective.   Therefore, there is no clear dividing line between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

Scientists are more interested in theories because their improvement gain status, money and prizes.   Can't make a name researching scientific laws.

Proof can be contradictory or insufficient.   Then the hypothesis remains that rather than becoming a theory or law.

The evidence and logic can disprove a hypothesis.   (Falsification.)   Then the statement is false.   (Ex: The moon is made of green cheese.)   Believing a false statement is an illusion or delusion.   Pretending to believe in a false statement is a fantasy.   If a hypothesis doesn't qualify as a theory, it qualifies even less as a law (fact).

There might be alternative hypotheses supported by the evidence.   Then the tester chooses the best theory or finds more evidence to make a more definitive choice.

Scientific belief (the mental acceptance of a statement as true) of a theory is measured subjectively by assigning a probability to it.   Thus, there are gradations of belief.   This subjective measure of belief is called Bayesian probability.   Thus, scientists say "I believe [the statement] is untrue (0% probable = absolutely false), true (100 % probable = "absolutely true"), probably true (more than 50%), improbably true (less than 50% = probably false), etc.

In the 1982 case, Rev. Bill McLean et. all. v. Arkansas Board of Education, where the State of Arkansas passed Act 590 that required public schools to give "balanced treatment" to "creation-science" and "evolution-science" in the biology curriculum alongside evolution, U. S. District Court Judge William R. Overton's final opinion was based on mainly on the testimony of Michael Ruse, philosopher of science from Guelph U., and other scientists.   He said the following in his opinion:

"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses)."

Note that Judge Overton used the word "law" rather than "theory".   I think this was intentional.   If he chose the more appropriate scientific word, "theory", it would have been used by the creationists to state that evolution was "just a theory", meaning there was room for another theory of equal merit, using the layperson's definition of "theory".   Overton and Ruse were too smart to leave that loophole for another legal challenge.