Depends of what you mean by fundamental. Every law is an incomplete description of a part of the universe. One of first things you do when coming across such a law, is test it. This not only determines whether it is valid, but, perhaps more importantly, where and when it is valid.
Think for example of Newton's law of gravitation. It works remarkably well in all the cases available at the time, with, perhaps[1], one exception: the behavior of Mercury was a bit funky.
Wait a few hundred years, and here comes a young jewish scientist called Einstein with a strange new law of gravitation that not only agrees perfectly with Newton in most cases, it also takes care of all the nagging exceptions that are known. We're still looking for further [2] exceptions to Einsteins general theory of relativity, but I have no doubt that eventually some one else will come along with a new fangled theory that will take care of those as well.
This is how science works. Laws are idealized approximations to the real world with well defined (although sometimes unknown) boundaries of applicability. Whenever we find ourselves too constricted by them we eventually create a better description that, by adding some complexity, will remove or at least expand, some of the boundaries.
If this is true in something as fundamental as gravitation, it will be even more so in anything that deals with Human Behavior. People like to be different (or at least thing they are) but there are basic constants and mechanisms that are present in each of us.
[1] I'm not sure whether or not the problem with Mercury was already known by Newton's time.
[2] So far the only place where it doesn't seem to work well is when quantum effects are present as well.
Think for example of Newton's law of gravitation. It works remarkably well in all the cases available at the time, with, perhaps[1], one exception: the behavior of Mercury was a bit funky.
Wait a few hundred years, and here comes a young jewish scientist called Einstein with a strange new law of gravitation that not only agrees perfectly with Newton in most cases, it also takes care of all the nagging exceptions that are known. We're still looking for further [2] exceptions to Einsteins general theory of relativity, but I have no doubt that eventually some one else will come along with a new fangled theory that will take care of those as well.
This is how science works. Laws are idealized approximations to the real world with well defined (although sometimes unknown) boundaries of applicability. Whenever we find ourselves too constricted by them we eventually create a better description that, by adding some complexity, will remove or at least expand, some of the boundaries.
If this is true in something as fundamental as gravitation, it will be even more so in anything that deals with Human Behavior. People like to be different (or at least thing they are) but there are basic constants and mechanisms that are present in each of us.
[1] I'm not sure whether or not the problem with Mercury was already known by Newton's time.
[2] So far the only place where it doesn't seem to work well is when quantum effects are present as well.