Difference between the Scientific Law of Causality and the Buddhist Law of Conditionality What is the difference between the scientific law of causality and the Buddhist law of conditionality (Paṭiccasamuppāda)? I am not convinced with the way Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, for example, has drawn the distinction between the two. According to him, the scientific law of causality is linear with one cause giving rise to one effect which in turn becomes the cause of a second effect, so on and so forth. The law of conditionality on the other hand, he says, is a structural principle based on a complex interplay of various conditions wherein an effect arises due to an array of causes that interact with each other in a complicated fashion to give rise to an effect. Well, it is not that the scientific principle does not recognize that. It clearly does!
What I have understood is that the law of conditionality is a much wider extension of the scientific principle of causality that is strictly applicable to material phenomena only. In addition to material realities, Paṭiccasamuppāda also deals with what may be referred to as metaphysical and ontological phenomena. The rules of science do not allow it to venture into these fields at all!
What is the actual Buddhist position on this?
Science deals with the physically measurable. Buddhist teachings focus on the end of suffering. Both discuss causality, but in different ways.
The scientific method emphasizes reproducibility of results for a given hypothesis. In schools we can all drop large and small weights to observe they fall at the same speed. However, we have to be very very careful about using words such as &quot;scientific law of causality&quot;. We have to be careful because scientific hypotheses change. In particular, Newton asserted that gravity is a force. Modern science asserts instead that mass bends space-time in such a way that falling objects move at the same rate. So there is no law of causality. Science is a simply a body of hypotheses that are verifiable under specified conditions. As we learn more, our hypotheses change. For example we still haven't figured out dark matter and dark energy. Science is our current best guess for the physically measurable.
In contrast, the Buddha taught about suffering, its origin and its end. With regard to suffering, the Buddha also discusses causality and views (i.e., hypotheses). Here, he discusses bad kamma arising out of bad actions.

MN60:24.7: So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct.
MN60:24.8: And that is how wrong view gives rise to these many bad, unskillful qualities—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
MN60:25.1: A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
MN60:25.2: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe.
MN60:25.3: And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Science relies on the reproducibility of physical measurement. Buddhism relies on the reproducibility of subjective measurement of suffering. Both science and Buddhism assert reproducibility of experience. However, science is not really concerned with the end of suffering. And Buddhism isn't really concerned with the rate of falling objects.