Difference Between Law and Theory
Law and Theory are two different entities and totally diverse from each other. There is a vast difference between these two terms, Law and Theory.
A Theory is fundamentally an advanced hypothesis and can be replaced by a fresh theory after the earlier has been disproved. It can also be considered as an advanced explanation on the way a system or a process functions.
A law is readily observable in character. Contrarily, the Law is a proved hypothesis. A Law is a statement that cannot be challenged or revoked and is therefore undeniable and remains in existence forever.
The strength and the weakness of a theory are totally dependent on the evidence that is produced in support of the theory. Yet however powerful or strong theories may be, they cannot be considered as laws. This is due to the fact that a theory that falls through can be replaced by a new theory with fresh evidence. A Law, therefore, is a statement that cannot be denied and is therefore will be enacted as a law permanently.
It would be pertinent to point out that a theory is a sheer hypothesis of a research work carried out and a theory is purported to be the outcome of a guess work also. A law is a proven hypothesis and is considered to be undisputed as such forever.
Laws lend a helping hand in a theory which is of utmost importance. It can be mentioned that a scientific law may be applied by a scientist in order to come to the conclusion of a scientific theory establishing his fresh observations after conducting a methodical research.
We would be a better position to see through the variations between these two terms after taking a look at some of the specimens of laws and theories. The Law of Relativity is undeniable whereas theories about the origin of language could be negated. Similarly, the theories on the origin of a language were simply a hypothesis concluded by the philologists belonging to a bygone age. These conjectures were founded on the base of some assumptions about the emanation of sounds and words and there are simply no documents to prove these suppositions.