Question

Which term is used to describe a fact that has always been observed true but could at some future time not be observed as true.
Hypothesis
Theory
Law

Answer 1

@uhasdfsafasfas
I honestly think it would have to be Hypothesis because its a fact that has been true but it could be seen as not true some time later on....I hope this helped you answer your question

Answer 2

A hypothesis is an educated guess, it has not been proven yet.

A theory means that as far as we know and as far as all the experiments and counter experiments and research that have we done thus far it seems to be this way. Maybe in the future another discovery may prove it wrong but up until today this is the way it is.

A law is something that has been proven, and has been declared not to be false. No other way around.

A theory definitely describes it best

Answer 3

@uhasdfsafasfas @thomaster @katieGrl17

A hypothesis is more properly a repeatedly testable possible explanation for observed events.

A theory is what @thomaster put as a Law. A theory is an accepted explanation that is able to account for nearly all the possibilities and has yet to any significant (in scientific terms) evidence to the contrary.

A law is a explanation that has no results against it and has had repeated experiments that have shown that using our best, most current understanding the explanation is upheld. Additionally, the experiments have been so conclusive and tested so many times and upheld in all ways that we do not believe the explanation will ever be proven false. However, we never are 100% sure in even our Laws. We are 99.99999% sure.

Answer 4

@mrdoldum What I put as a law is definitely not a theory. A theory is not without exception, like a law. You probably interpreted it the wrong way, I was trying to describe it in a simple way.

To be clear:
A law is
- a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing.

A theory is
- a scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation.

A law is much more of an empirical generalization, while a theory is a large body of information about some related group of natural phenomena.

Answer 5

@thomaster I thought I deleted that post. Yes, halfway through I realized I was misremembering what you typed. As I said, I thought I had deleted it.

Still. A law is not an empirical generalization. It is quite specific, like the Law of Gravity. Essentially, we believe laws are true and will always be true. For example, the speed of light through a vacuum is thought to correct and will never change. Notice I say thought, because we cannot state anything with 100% certainty, maybe our instruments to verify our calculations are faulty in a way we do not know.

Answer 6

I didn't misinterpret anything. You state that a law is "without exception" which is wrong. A law is believed to be "without exception" but as my post above points out, we can never be 100% sure.

This kind of misstatement on your part make me spend the first month or more correcting the black and white thinking of all the intro bio students for their first university semester.

Answer 7

@thomaster Oh, interestingly, my choice of the speed of light is a great example. Apparently, it may need adjusting to be slower than currently thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/27/speed-of-light-wrong_n_5536084.html