‘Scientific-Laws’ is a forgivable exaggeration by the scientific-community. They are in fact generalizations from limited observations, tentatively affirmed hypothesis which lead a precarious existence, vulnerable on every flank.
A hypothesis is never proved. It only stands unrejected. Via Negativa-Lite.
Every vaunted discipline mounts it’s truth on ‘First Principles’. They range from the thoughtful to the fearlessly flippant. All ‘First Principles’ however, carry legitimacy only when mounted on the critically important ‘First Presumption’ that there is an ‘Independent and Separate Observer, Self, Subject’.
[Most Inquiry cheerfully begins well-past all ‘First Principles’. Ask your Chemistry Professor for his ‘First Principles List’ and wreck his day.]
The Mother Principle of Experimental-Science is the Principle of Induction. And along with the Contradiction Principle, it holds up much of what we know as modern Science. [Lots on the Contradiction Principle later.]
The Principle says: ‘Like tomorrow’s sunrise, what is happening will continue happening until it doesn’t happen.’
The Induction Rule is formalized in the Mathematics of ‘Probability Theory’. And the First Affirmation of Experimental Science is that a hypothesis can never be proved, only rejected. It is impossible to prove that a man always speaks the truth, but easy to test if he never lies [One lie is proof].
And Induction’s ‘Rejection-Machine’ becomes functional, takes life, because of words like ‘Not’, ‘Always’ and ‘Never’.
Things work, but not for the reasons you think they do. And they could stop working, again not for the reasons you think they might.
The early Greeks for instance, refused to give the Induction-Rule the status of ‘Law’. It was a helpful rule, an informed conjecture, but no, it was not ‘Law’. For a conjecture to become law it is required that it ‘Always Work’. The Laws of Motion cannot turn off at night, nor stop working when you are not looking.
Or do they?