There is, as Steve Shaw indicates, an implied premise in some people's reasoning in just using the word 'laws'.

If you allow yourself to think of 'laws' in a similar sense to the way we use it in regulating human behavior and the system of statutes, you end up with questions like, "Who *laid down* the laws?"
I remember jokes about "repealing the 'law' of gravity."

All we do in science is attempt to 'see how things work' in nature.... and 'nature' can mean the universe in general. We can state some things with clarity and perform predictable chemical operations with no doubt how they will work IF conditions are controlled.
On the other hand, we can't predict or explain exactly how the weather is going to treat us..... just too many variables and a difficulty in acquiring certain types of data. BUT, we do predict the weather better than we did 50 or 100 years ago. Logic comes in when we assume that IF we have enough relevant data and past examples for comparison, we can do pretty well! (This is inductive logic... we look at events, extract the 'laws/rules' that apply, then use deductive logic to predict that XYZ weather is likely.)