Scientific theories are facts

Thanks to my opponent and on to my final rebuttal. My opponent has stated that laws and theories are fundamentally different." "The importance here lies not in what is stated, but in the predictability of the Law, something which Theory lacks." I intend to show in this round that this is false and that scientific theories and laws are the same by looking at the examples my opponent provided and show that these "facts" are based both on laws and theories. These example were provided by my opponent and have been presented as examples of absolute facts. On closer analysis however, we will see these are not absolute facts, but facts as shown by scientific theories and laws. Additionally, as I pointed out in my last rounds arguments scientific laws do make predictions and my opponent has accepted that. In the same way scientific theories make predictions, so how are they different? Looking at the examples presented lets see if these are absolute facts, or are these facts defined by scientific theories.(a) It is a Fact that ice is the solid state of water. Ice is what the solid state of water is called, yet there are various solid phases of water which are described by various conditions. (1) In fact some of these solid states of water have a higher density than liquid water and as such will not float in liquid water, so is this such a fact as my opponent says. No, as it goes counter to what we observe. However, this fact of various phases and properties of ice can be described by scientific theory.(2) (b) It is a fact that water's molecules consist of one hydrogen molecule and two oxygen molecules.I think my opponent made a tying error as water is actually 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom. Nevertheless this is not the true picture as water can also occur in clusters in the liquid phase which are higher structures such as (H20)280.(3) Please realize water clusters are not water memory as sold by homeopaths and is pseudoscience.(4) Water clusters can only be explained using scientific theory. (c) It is a fact that electricity may be channeled through wires to generate power. Wires? What are wires? According to Merriam Webster they are metal.(5) However it is also known that non metals are able to conduct electricity as in the case of polythiophene.(6) This polymer contains carbon, sulfur and hydrogen all non metal. The fact of electrical conduction can only be explained using scientific theory. (d) It is a fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Again, this is not true. Depending on the pressure of the air water boils at different temperatures.(7) This fact can be shown using the ideal gas law which is a scientific law.(8) (e) It is a fact that Uranium is radioactive. This is true, but which form of Uranium is my opponent talking about. For example to create nuclear power you need Uranium 235.(9) However if you use Uranium 234 or 238, you cannot run a nuclear reactor unless you change the Uranium into another fissile material. These facts can be explained using the atomic theory which is a scientific theory.(10) My opponent has stated that an assertion I made is incorrect regarding facts i.e "The assertion that if Scientific Theories and Laws are not Fact, there are no such things as Fact, is completely false". However, this is exactly what my opponent has shown. These examples given by my opponent explicitly show that "absolute" facts can only be determined using scientific theories or laws if we consider them facts.My opponents assertion that "There are numerous facts, things that are indisputably the case, in Science. Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories are not indisputable, though it is harder to dispute Scientific Laws because they restrict themselves to observed conditions." This is incorrect as laws are theories as I outlined in round three of this debate. The fact is both laws and theories can be disproved in the same way and as such there is no difference. Laws are not harder to disprove than theories, as they are the same thing. I feel it necessary to bring Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation up again, this law is applicable everywhere. Yes we have not dropped a ball on Mars, but we know the gravitational constant on Mars and so we can make the prediction which will be accurate. One day when we get to Mars we can do the experiment, and we will be proved correct. My opponent is trying to define Newton's Law as a law on Earth and then another law for elsewhere, this is wrong. The law is universal and holds everywhere.(11) In closing, I have shown that what are considered facts through the examples given by my opponent are not facts, but rather facts as demonstrated using scientific theories. I also believe I have shown that there is no difference between scientific laws and theories. For this reason we either have to accept scientific theories as facts, or no facts exist. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and having an insightful and relevant debate. Now over to you for your final comments.(1) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk... (2) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk...(3) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk...(4) http://www.chem1.com... (5) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(6) http://www.tandfonline.com... (7) http://www.csgnetwork.com...(8) http://www.chemguide.co.uk... (9) http://education.jlab.org...(10) http://abyss.uoregon.edu... (11) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...