Scientific theories are facts

As every scientific law is a theory and can be disproved, this is essentially the heart of my argument The fact that both may be disproven does not change the fact that they are fundamentally different. Both Theories and Laws may at one point be disproven, yet Laws will be harder to disprove, because they do not make claims to causality. My opponent does not seem to realize the difference that I am calling to light. I shall endeavor to explain it clearly and in full, as now that I examine my previous argument, I realize that I failed to do so.. Arguing that something happens, and arguing that something is the cause of that happening are two different things. We can prove or disprove the occurrence. The cause, however, is much harder to pinpoint, and literally could be anything. This is where Scientific Law and Scientific Theories divide. Law states what is. Theory states what might be, based on observations and concepts. "Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory isNOTa "transitory law, a law in waiting."(1)The lack of a hierarchy in Science when it comes to Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories is irrelevant. The two are fundamentally different. Laws are observable facts that do not make predictions "The importance here lies not in what is stated, but in the predictability of the Law, something which Theory lacks." While Theories are based on observable facts and make predictions. I should clarify this. My statement was that Laws are observable occurrences, specific and limited in scope, and nothing more. Laws can be used to predict an outcome, but only if they are used correctly, that is, that the conditions required for the law to be operable are met. In this way, Law restricts itself to what we know from observation. Theory, on the other hand, seeks to explain the observation beyond what we have simply observed. Theory tries to pinpoint the cause of the occurrence. Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation States not simply that Gravity is the force accelerating objects towards Earth, but that objects in the rest of the Universe exert gravitational force on each other as well, and that is the reason we rotate around the sun, etc. Because we do not actually have the capability to conduct the same vacuum experiments on Mars, Venus, etc, it remains a Theory. However, the Law of Gravitation on Earth is a Law because we can empirically test it, and it applies here on earth only. The assertion that if Scientific Theories and Laws are not Fact, there are no such things as Fact, is completely false. If I plug in my laptop’s power cord, it is a fact that the cord conducts electricity to the battery, charging it. If I throw a punch at someone, it is a fact that my muscles tensed and relaxed in such a manner as to propel my fist forward to impact the other person. These are Facts. Scientific Theories and Laws can be disproven. If they can be disproven, it is not appropriate to call these things “Facts.” Rather, it is more appropriate to describe them as currently accepted, limited in scope, observations. To treat them as Fact, when there is a question of their complete and absolute validity, is farcical. The Oxford Dictionary defines Fact as “a thing that is indisputably the case.”[1] If there is some dispute about the complete and absolute validity of Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws, then they cannot be Fact. Scientific Laws have a caveat here, and that is that they are only valid under certain specified conditions, making their reach limited to begin with. Scientific Theories, on the other hand, are broad and sweeping, and do not limit themselves anywhere near the extent Scientific Laws do. And Scientific Laws are limited for a reason: we only know them to be true under the specified conditions. Scientific Theories make claims far beyond their observed conditions, and as such, do not represent fact. But my Opponent has failed to address the crucial problem here. Even Scientific Facts, be they Scientific Laws or Scientific Theories, by definition, are not absolute! The definition of a Scientific Fact is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)” [2] It’s truth is never final. How, then, can it be fact? Now I move to the consequences of my discussion. If Scientific Laws and Theories are not true Fact, as in, their truth is never final, what then are facts? Well, there are plenty of facts in Science. It is a Fact that ice is the solid state of water. It is a fact that water's molecules consist of one hydrogen molecule and two oxygen molecules. It is a fact that electricity may be channeled through wires to generate power. It is a fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. It is a fact that Uranium is radioactive. 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. What, then, should we call Scientific Theories and Laws if not Fact? Well, call them what they are: Observations and possible explanations for what occurs in nature. As they are not indisputable, and their truth is not final, we must take them as they are, limited in scope and prone to being incorrect. It speaks to the pride and arrogance of man that the Scientific community treats their ideas and explanations, as good as they may be, as beyond the reach of criticism and, ironically, their own limitations. Science is limited first and foremost by Man's imperfect nature. How, then, can we expect our ideas and experiments studying the world to be perfect as well? Rather than be quick to exalt the works of the imperfect mind, susceptible to so many different factors, we should instead be reluctant to claim incontestability, and restrict our claims of fact to what we can directly and indisputably prove. Unfortunately, this would mean that Scientific Theories, those that are held to be the mightiest of intellectual achievements, would have to face their shortcomings and acknowledge them openly.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...