no i mean in general, im trying to get a complete understanding to why the theories of sciences are so convincing, and we should not just look at the natural sciences what about the human sciences

no i'm not saying they are true i'm saying they are correct to our knowledge.

Social sciences operate under the same principle as natural sciences. Someone comes up with a hypothesis (what they think might be true about a certain thing). They then perform an experiment to determine whether or not that hypothesis is correct. If it is, then they see if they can find new hypotheses which expand on the first one, and test those hypotheses too. When this group of hypotheses covers a broad enough subject, they can be grouped into what is called a Theory. That Theory is also testable by experiments.

Think about it like this. Have you ever thrown a ball? Have you ever thrown a ball and expected it to fly forever instead of eventually coming back down? If not, then it's because you are convinced that gravity exists, and you are convinced of this because you have experienced gravity first-hand many, many times. It's the same with scientific theories.

but gravity is a law not a theory
but im wondering about the theories if it can be changed over time what makes me convinced that this one is right or not?

Nope. "Newton's Law of Gravity" is a theory. Your problem seems to be that you are using the common definition of "theory" and not the scientific one. A good definition of what a scientific theory is given on Wikipedia:



A good theory makes predictions about the physical world, and those predictions are then testable via experiments. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity makes predictions about how far something will travel when you throw it. It also makes predictions about how much time a planet will take to orbit the sun.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have a 100% complete theory that explains gravity. Newtonian Gravity is very good in most circumstances, but it fails to accurately explain some things. General Relativity successfully explains everything that Newtonian can and it accurately explains the tings that Newtonian does not on a macro scale, however General Relativity does not make predictions about particles on the quantum scale.

i see your point, however, i understand where your comming fro, but my question has been partly answered.
so if the theories are true for some time then changes how am i suppose to be convinced that the next theory is true? do you know what i mean?
because it could be changed like a paradigm.

they don't claim to be true they only claim to be right to our knowledge.

study and learn how to evaluate scientific theories and then judge for yourself. scientist aren't just some random people that make up stuff. they have years and years of education and experience that help them explain the universe around us and the only way for you to reasonably doubt them is to know more than they do.

You're not wrong to question whether or not a theory is true. That's the very nature of science -- skepticism. You can't simply believe EVERYTHING you hear and EVERYTHING you are told. Question everything to find the truth.

thanks guys for your help im writing a paper on this
im trying to get deeper into this thats why im asking these types of questions

It's so convincing because to believe in the essence of the science, you don't have to believe it to be an absolute truth. You are only required to believe in it as far as the evidence shows.