Is a Biological Principal a Scientific Law?

Question

[solimarra99]

Hi. My understanding was that a scientific theory and law complement each other. There is a guy at work that insists that a theory with more evidence ecomes a law.  Recently he cited an article that said that a theory that has been repeatedly verified and appears to have a wide applicability in Biology, it may assume the status of Biological Principle...then he concludes that principle is a law. Is that conclusion correct? Thank you very much.

[Joe]

I dont think a "biological principle" has a meaningful definition in that argument.

In science, hypotheses, theories, and laws, have very defined meanings (which differ to how laypeople use them which is often the source of comments by e.g. religious fundamentalists about how "evolution is only a theory", but I digress...).

A "Biological Priniciple", to me, feels quite 'wooly' as a solid scientific concept. A hypothesis could be a biological principle, evolution could be a biological principle, and everything in between. I was certainly never taught through my degree; "Ok class, X has been bestowed the title of a 'Biological Principle', but Y is just some idea someone had".

Answer 1

[Kevin Blighe]

Seems reasonable to me, i.e., that theories eventually become 'laws' after having been repeatedly tested. Keep in mind that these things happen over long periods of time as generations pass by and new knowledge enters educational books.

Theories are first constructed / devised based on observations and axioms, after which point they provide a 'framework' for testing and understanding future information that comes to light.

Some theories that are still being tested:

• Theory of evolution
• Theories of general and special relativity
• Plate tectonics
• Quantum theory
• String theory
• Big bang theory

One could argue that these are already law to some, namely plate tectonics and evolution. Others have somewhat failed, or don't fully explain everything that we observe, i.e., Big bang and string theories. Even Einstein's theories cannot fully explain everything that is observed.

Taking everything into account, I would not get into a long-winded argument with a colleague debating the definition of 'theory'. I'd just get on with my work.

Kevin