The difference between Theory and Law is that Theories are spherically shaped and Laws are cube shaped.

As the writer for this TED-Ed script, l’d like to like to thank all the people who have taken the time to comment on this lesson. I find the comment threads to be a great place to gauge the different ways people interpret the lesson in specific and the topic in general. For example, in my previous TED-Ed on ‘Precision v. Accuracy’, I learned a lot about the role of different languages in influencing their understanding of the terms. I don't want to muddle up the comment thread, but I do want to address one point which has come up in multiple comments: hypotheses - both its omission from the video and its role in the scientific endeavor. ‘Hypothesis’ would have been a natural addition, as the ‘scientific trilogy’ normally is recited as ‘hypothesis, theory, and law’. However, one of the guiding philosophies at TED-Ed is that these lessons be concise. ‘Bite-size’ might seem a little too trivial of a descriptor; ‘snack-size’ might fit better as long as we’re assuming it is a healthy, brain-stimulating, perhaps perspective-altering snack. As such, TED-Ed lessons are tightly-framed on a specific goals and writers are held to a strict word count for the script. When this topic was approved and drafted out earlier this year (the process began back in May with a bulk of the script work in June/July), I and my ‘TED-Ed’itor wrestled with what to include. We opted to omit ‘hypothesis’ to free up space to discuss the relationship of theories and laws - hinging on that key phrase ‘It’s just a theory’. So let’s imagine this to be a ‘DVD extra’; if I HAD included hypotheses in the script, what would be MY take? I think hypotheses are a reflection of the role and importance of the experiment. An experiment is an organized attempt to collect data which we can use to further refine our understanding of the topic of interest. (Yes, there are many ways to define ‘experiment’ - this is mine.) A hypothesis is determined before the data is collected and makes and effort to predict how the experimental results will turn out as informed by our current understanding of the science behind the experiment. While technically, there is no mandate for any background knowledge before making a hypothesis, random wild guesses on them would suggest either total ignorance on the subject or blatant disregard for matters of funding and resources in determining which experiments to pursue. While hypotheses are popularly described as an ‘educated guess’, I am more partial to ‘testable prediction’. If you cannot imagine a scenario where your prediction is proven wrong by the results of the experiment, then you’re probably stepping out of the realm of science-as-we-know-it. This nuance about hypotheses does a nice job of filtering non-science topics from trying to be studied with the tools of science. For example, “Bigfoot exists” is not a good scientific hypothesis since it is not falsifiable. No matter how many experiments fail to detect Bigfoot, believers could still argue that you just haven’t found the right one yet. Instead, “Bigfoot does not exist” is an actual scientific hypothesis. You can imagine a scenario that successfully disproves this: conclusive evidence of Bigfoot. Full disclosure: there are camps that do not feel the needs be a requirement of ‘falsifiability’. Again, I just share my opinion here, with apologies to Bigfoot if you're reading this comment. A hypothesis guides an individual experiment. The results of multiple experiments inform our understanding of theories and laws. I do not feel that hypotheses ‘grow up’ into a theory, since their roles are dissimilar. However, the way in which hypotheses are phrased and their resulting experiments are conducted can have important influence on the acceptance of a theory (or law). David Buschhorn’s comment, “A scientist never tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to disprove their hypothesis,” is absolutely correct in the idea about disproving a hypothesis. Remember, in science we can never prove something is absolutely true; we can only support or challenge our understanding. However, I suspect scientists frequently engage in an experiment and frame their hypothesis, knowing that they can’t PROVE that they are right, but hoping to find that the results support and tighten the theory. This is not the same as proving, but the difference is nuanced and worth noting. So, in summary, hypothesis are very important in the process of doing science, since they frame our experimental expectations and our understanding of the results. When hypothesis partner with well-designed experiments, we make progress on understanding our theories and laws! Thanks for your interest in TED-Ed!

These video's tickle my interest and lay a little foundation of knowledge, but the most I get out of these are from the comment section. I love to read how passionately people explain, defend or refute ideas and share what they have learned; so people like me, who have no scientific base to fall back upon, get a little bit smarter.

Science is not perfect, but its the best way to describe the world.

tl;dr version Law: This will haopen. Theory: OK... Y tho?

People confuse theories with hypotheses way too often

3:34 To explain some of these rejected theories: Miasma was an explanation of the transmission of diseases. Instead of harmful bacteria and viruses causing sickness, it was believed that clouds of "bad air" (called Miasma), which originated from grave yards and pools of sewage, caused disease. Doctors would literally wave a bunch of herbs in front of people to clear out the miasma. Interstellar Aether was an ancient theory originating from Aristotle. He proposed that the universe hates vacuums. No matter what where you were in the universe, you were always surrounded by SOME kind of material. So, instead of being a vacuum as we understand it, the area outside of the atmosphere was filled with a divine substance called Aether. This held even after Europe converted to Christianity and stopped believing that the planets were literally gods. The Four Humors is another idea from the ancient Greeks. The human body was of four substances, blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. If the body had an excess of one, the person would either become ill, grow angry, fall into depression, or be insane. Unlike the Miasma preventing herbs, which basically didn't do anything positive or negative to the patients, the best way to rebalance the four humors was to bleed a person of the offending substance. No, not bleed them in any metaphorical way, I mean take a knife and cut an artery open until the person was "cured." Martian Canals was mostly the result of bad images from telescopes. At around the turn of the 19th century, astronomers looked up at Mars and thought they were seeing lines crossing the martian surface. They concluded that Mars had life, intelligent life, but the planet was dying. So, the Martians were building huge canals to tightly control the little water that was left. HG Welles believed this theory when he wrote "War of the Worlds." However, the lines the astronomers thought they were seeing were actually just distortions caused by Earth's atmosphere. Hollow Earth is pretty straight forward, the Earth is hollow. No lava or rocks, inside the Earth there is an entire world inside our own, with oceans, and maybe extinct creatures live there. Some even claimed WE were the ones on the inside of a sphere. Lysenkoism was actually a state sponsored "scientific" theory. Trofim Lysenko proposed the theory in the Lenin controlled USSR as an alternate to the "capitalist" ideas of Darwinian natural selection (particularly the whole "survival of the fittest"). Trofim made all kinds of claims, that wheat could transform into Rye. His ideas became popular as Stalin literally rounded up and shot/imprisoned Trofim's scientific opponents (although Stalin didn't trust anyone smarter than him anyway).

0:14 thats just a theory! A GAME THEORY. Thanks for watching :)

Hypothesis: Is an educated guess about an explanation for a set of observations. Theory: Is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and not dis-proven. Law: Is an obvious fact recorded after observation.

Law=What happens. Theory=But how? Theories never become law but they often rise or fall together.

"Well, that’s just a theory" your friend must be a creationist

A comparison with hypothesis was sorely needed here (~99% of people informally use the term theory when they really mean hypothesis). Theories have strong and varied evidential support and utility, while hypotheses don't (at least not yet).

THANK YOU TED ED! I don't really know why people don't understand this but thanks for making another awesome video. I often get a bit annoyed when people say things like it is just a theory because they clearly don't understand what SCIENTIFIC theories have to go through to have a consensus. keep up the good work.

Wow. All this time wasted on confusing the words *theory* and *hypothesis*. A scientist _never_ tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to *_disprove_* their _hypothesis_.

This definition of theory seems to have more overlap with that of hypothesis than it should, particularly at 2:51. To my understanding, a theory is something with substantial evidence, while a hypothesis is an educated guess. The "theory" at 2:51 is really just a hypothesis, and a horrible one at that.

So many people need to see this video, thank you for making it.

yo im JUST seeing this rn in 2020-

Brilliant content... thank you for producing this clarifying and concise material!!!

"Well, that's Just a theory." Me: A GAME THEORY

Good explanation for kids, but they could've mentioned hypothesis too. There should've been more emphasize that theory is not just a guess but rather *the highest grade* of scientific explanation in its field. As if hollow earth etc. "theories" were well established. Those were more just hypothesis. Also, even if our current laws are disproven in some scenarios, that only narrows the domain. If it's a law, it still works within its limits by which it was established, just like classical mechanics.

I feel like I've been misled. I was always told that a theory BECOMES a law when it's reached a certain point of maturity where there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. That's how it has always been described to me in science classes and in other materials.

I think everyone should watch this channel

0:14 A *_GAME_* THEORY! 2:30 -_____________________-

I wasn't even paying attention to the lesson bc that cube and ball ARE CUTE

2:37 wat da heck is the baseball doing to her??

Who else is watching this only because our teachers assigned it.

This helped me so much! thank you!

This animation was seriously so good !

Wow, this explanation is actually detrimental! Expressing how a theory *must* predict new evidence: failed. Expressing how a scientific theory must be the simplest possible: failed. Expressing the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis: failed. Expressing the relativity of error, and how error diminishes with every new theory: failed. Expressing how theories are tested *against*: failed. Way to confuse everyone and to legitimise who mistakenly misunderstands a scientific theory for _just a theory_. Nice job!

I like the visual analogy of throwing data and tests at theories and seeing which remain standing.

Thanks for the video I am going to show this video to my students thankyou!😉💯

someone:gravity is just a theory me:go fight 9 rounds with john cena

Imagine game theory saying “That’s just a law, a game law. Thanks for watching!”

4:34 A good scientific theory is like Captain America saying, "I can do this all day." 😂😂

awesome!!! Thanks for the explanation and upload.

one of the best videos so far. thanks!

0:14 but hey thats just a theory!!! A GAME THEORY

BUT HEY, THAT'S JUST A THEORY, A SCIENCE THEORY! THANKS FOR WATCHING.

Thanks for the amazing ppt!!

Let me clarify the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Hypothesis: An initial explanation for a natural phenomenon that has yet to have any scientific credence in terms of experimental and observational data. Theory: A scientific explanation that has substantial evidence to support its claims in terms of experimental and observational scientific data. Additionally, it's falsifiable, but has yet to be falsified.

"well that's just a theory" Me: A GAME THEORY!!!!

What about a hypothesis?

excellent video, it was recommended to me by my scientific thought teacher

Splendid and insightful!

who else is confused?

send this video to every creationist that likes to scoff at science because of the "theories"

Let's hope Richard Feynman never see's this video... Why Vs How

I think simple word be Theory : an undergoing studies of a certain thing, events in trying to understand why or is it true Law: Thing that are definite and can predict with great or 100% accuracy about certain things, events like gravitational force, water pressure

if only normal education was presented like this---

who had to watch this for class

Consider also that people confuse the word “theory” for “hypothesis.” When they say ‘it’s just a theory’ they usually refer as ‘it’s just a hypothesis.’

Wao, for me this is the one most interesting videos that I watched in this channel

0:12 A fiiilm theory, aaaaand cut

I know that theories play a significant role in science but for 15 years in school I never have ever known that theory is not just an unproven law.

very helpful, thanks

POV: Your teacher put this video link somewhere and made you watch this.

A theory and a hypothesis are often used interchangeably to the point that people don't know what each of them mean

Me: wait what this video abt?? Someone: Umm, it's abt difference between theories and laws Me: Oh, all I was hearing chants from the video telling me sleep, sleep, sleep!! Lol haha xD

"well thats just a theory" ... A GAME THEORY

In which program do they do animations like these? Anybody know??? Im curious

*BUT THAT’S JUST A THEORY, A GAMMEEE THEORY*

I suspect its also important to differentiate between 'theories' that developed when science was relatively young (i.e. before the scientific method was widely adopted and the invention of things like telescopes, microscropes and computing) and modern theories today. Alchemy, for example, was more folk law, symbolism and mysticism than hard experimentation - it's true that it was the origin of modern chemistry, but it wasn't exactly scientific itself. Climate change, the big bang and evolution, on the other hand, were developed in the context of rigorous scientific enquiry and have survived as explanations in the face of a relatively vast amount of data and scientific debate. Sure, they could still be discredited, but it feels unfair to say 'alchemy was wrong so evolution might be too'. To me, it's a bit like doubting your doctors medical advice because a little girl when you were eight told you babies come out of a woman's belly button.

GREAT PIECE!

Hi, thanks for the lovely video, its great...I love the humour in the animation very much...Encourage you to continue the same...:)

Well, theory is round, and law is a cube.

that's just a theory a film theory

what an awesome channel ,why i didn't discovered it before? gg ted ed

Every time I think I have it down, I see another comment laying it out and someone saying they’re wrong. I’m still not clear on hypothesis vs theory vs law. Can someone use gravity as an example? Like a hypothesis about gravity, a theory about gravity, and the law of gravity?

But Heyyy!That's just a theory, a FILM THEORY!

wait. so whats a hypothesis? and an inference? Damn, my whole high school education just fade off like that.

Is there a transcript of this that I can use in my classroom?

If someone said the phrase "is just a theory", you leave, you don't need that kind of negativity and stupidity in your life, you served better.

People talking about science and don't even know what a theory is cringe-worthy.

A potential problem with this explanation is that sometimes a law is called a theory just because it is, welp you know, once called a theory. For example, the theory of general and special relativity is not a theory, but an accepted scientific law, it is called a theory because it is started that way, the paper Einstein published in 1905 title is such, and the theory took too long to confirm. So what's the difference between a law and theory, well it's just that, a name, their boundary can be blur, you have to get to know the field to truly distinguish the difference.

2:54 That is amazing

More people need to watch this.

I hate that the film community has something called Murphy's Law, and they go around describing that what can go wrong will go wrong...That's not a Law! it's just an assumption! a Probability! A Probability of 50-50!

i laughed when they knocked down the cold fusion dummy... i guess all the folks in MIT are wasting their time..

Thank you

Well put.

4:48 A GAME THEORY!

So theories are spheres and laws are cubes....

His voice is really soothing

Wow it’s over my head!! I don’t know what to say except for that somtimes I am mad at person who always say ‘It’s just theory!’, although he doesn’t even know.

What do you call toast, eggs, ham, turkey, and another slice of toast? Hang on, I'm eating a sandwich.

"Evolution is just a theory." Says my friend who I cannot challenge because he is a creationist.

THANK YOU.

I originally stated, “What about a hypothesis?”, because I considered this to be an omission. When you raise the statement, “It's only a theory”, you are directing this to the lay community as surly kids would have this explained to them in school. So it's important to explain hypothesis, theory and laws.

Theory and Law are so cute !!! ^-^

I prefer how to why.

Love this.

what does '' go nine rounds with the champ '' mean ? plz explain if you know.thanks

I’m pretty sure we’re all here because of school

Great. Now can someone explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious "theory"? And then go explain to these christians that they're not even is the same ballpark when it comes to plausible explanations of the world around us?

When its science we dont get many hypothesis but when it comes to anime we predict things that is unimaginable

Great explanation of how theories differ from laws, but you confused theories with hypotheses.

Scientist: the big bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe based on lots of evidence and observations Uneducated Person: iTsJuSTaThEoRy

who else here came to this video because they need help with their science homework ⬇️

Very good.

Can u make a video of spring theory