Final answer:
Both scientific theories and scientific laws can be modified if new peer-reviewed data contradicts them. Theories are explanations of patterns in nature, while laws are summaries of patterns observed in data, often mathematical. The adaptability and openness to new evidence are fundamental to the progression of scientific knowledge.
Step-by-step explanation:
Both scientific theories and scientific laws can be modified if data from peer-reviewed experiments show disagreement with them. However, there is a common misunderstanding regarding these concepts.
A scientific theory is an explanation of a pattern observed in the natural world, while a scientific law is a description of an observed pattern in data, often expressed as a mathematical equation. It's important to understand that a theory does not transform into a law with the accumulation of evidence; they remain distinct entities in the scientific community.
Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, typically in a concise, often mathematical form, allowing for general predictions. Laws state what happens and do not necessarily explain why it happens. A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.
However, it is critical to recognize that no law or theory is known with absolute certainty, as they are based on observations and experiments that could be contradicted by new findings. Truly, the essence of science lies in its adaptability and openness to change upon the availability of new evidence.
If peer-reviewed experiments present data that disagrees with a well-established scientific law or theory, then the scientific community must examine the new evidence. If the results are verifiable and reliable, then the law or theory would have to be modified or discarded, as scientific knowledge progresses with such discoveries. This constant evolution and refinement of scientific understanding are what allow us to advance our grasp of the universe.