theories and Laws

[notatall]

Could anyone help me to distinguish between a theory and a law?
Here below is the argument made by Kenneth Waltz, if you are interested in discussing about these, please make some comments on these arguments.
“Laws are facts of observation; theories are “speculative processes introduced to explain them”
“A law does not say why a particular association holds”
”Theory explains some part of reality and is therefore distinct from the reality it explains. If the distinction is preserved, it becomes obvious that induction from observables cannot in itself yield a theory that explains the observed.

Induction is used at the level of hypotheses and laws rather than at the level of theories. Laws are different from theories”

[Rade]

According to the National Academy of Science (1998, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Acad Press), a theory is defined as a "well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world". To do this (eg, explain) a theory can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. So, Waltz is not correct, a theory does not explain laws nor facts, a theory uses laws + facts + .... to explain some aspect of the natural world--some aspect of reality. A law is the stepchild of the theory--theory much more important. Newton Law of Gravity a great idea, but gravity explained (at classical level not quantum) by Einstein Theory of General Relativity.

The essence of science (which bty means "to know") is the testing of a theory (that is, testing the explanation the theory holds true) against the metaphysically given provided to the senses by the natural world--by reality. One way to test is via direct experimentation, but there always some degree of uncertainty, this is why science always yields uncertain knowledge. In fact, it is I think a good working definition: Science = Uncertain Knowledge. Richard Feynman gave a lecture titled "What is Science ?"--his take home message was that science is not allowing yourself to be brainwashed by others.--test--ask question--test--ask question..., this is science. I would add that the knowledge you acquire via science is always (100% of time) uncertain (that is, don't brainwash yourself to think you know more than you really do). Another way to test a theory (again, think explanation) is via indirect experimentation--this approach is used by particle physicists who study parts of reality too small to be observed directly. In both methods the key is to devise a way to hold constant some factor that might influence the explanation, so that some alternative explanation can be eliminated. I borrow here many thoughts written by Dr. Eugenie C. Scott in her book "Evolution vs Creationism" (2004, U. California Press).