Abstract
It is commonly believed that symmetry principles explain conservation laws. Since conservation laws can be mathematically derived from symmetries and vice versa, the explanatory asymmetry deserves philosophical justification. Marc Lange (2007) claims that symmetries are meta-laws that govern and hence explain conservation laws. In this paper, I argue that we should not grant symmetry a higher modal status. I present counterexamples to demonstrate that symmetries are neither necessary nor sufficient for conservation laws. Some symmetries are explanatorily prior to laws but not in the way that Lange prescribed. They serve as an epistemic guide rather than a necessary requirement.
