Can you prove anything in science

Depending on the principle it uses, like the change of resistance of a material due to temperature, the sensor may respond to other things too, that affect the resistance of that material. Another factor about measurements is that we can do anything with the sensors till we save the data.

However, the moment the data is saved in the computer, the data suddenly become some sacred evidence of the truth! And whatever we conclude based on those data become scientific! But there is no scientific evidence to prove that it came out of the skin. Who came up with statistical theories? Well statisticians, another scientific community! Do their theories remain the same? Well no. But at any given time, the best known statistical test is the judge. Why do scientific breakthroughs become famous and then fade away just like all other waves?

Well, finally we tell the community that there is something cool in our findings in the most prestigious conferences, and then we extend the paper to a journal. Off we go with the cycle of scientific investigation. Then we watch how our bar charts in Google scholar rise with new citations. We build an ego around it, and somehow for each paper in this World, the number of citations rises, and then falls.

This is true for every single paper published in the name of science in the history of human civilization. Why do the citations rise and then fall? Well because of the very nature of the causes and conditions of scientific evidence. We used sensors to collect data, remember? With the passage of time, sensor manufacturers produce better sensors that have better accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity.

When I was a student, force sensors used to be so noisy. Now we have six-axis force torque sensors with pretty reasonable accuracy and little cross-talk among axises.

Accelerometers used to have so much drift. Some conclusions are so well established we may feel confident we won't be revisiting them. I can't think of anyone I know who thinks we will be questioning the laws of thermodynamics any time soon. But physicists at the start of the 20th century, just before the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, didn't think they were about to rethink their field's foundations, either.

Some will say it is empiricism: observation and description of the world. Others will say it is the experimental method: the use of experience and experiment to test hypotheses. This is cast sometimes as the hypothetico-deductive method, in which the experiment must be framed as a deduction from theory, and sometimes as falsification, where the point of observation and experiment is to refute theories, not to confirm them.

Recently a prominent scientist claimed the scientific method was to avoid fooling oneself into thinking something is true that is not, and vice versa. Each of these views has its merits, but if the claim is that any one of these is the scientific method, then they all fail. History and philosophy have shown that the idea of a singular scientific method is, well, unscientific. In point of fact, the methods of science have varied between disciplines and across time.

In my view, the biggest mistake scientists make is to claim that this is all somehow simple and therefore to imply that anyone who doesn't get it is a dunce. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options. Discover World-Changing Science. But would it really?

It is time we abandoned it. Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter. Sign Up. Support science journalism. Knowledge awaits. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. To review a more accurate representation of the process of science, explore our flowchart. Creativity is critical to science! They also use their creativity to come up with new ideas, explanations, and tests.

Scientific analysis often involves jumping back and forth among different modes of reasoning and creative brainstorming! What's important about scientific reasoning is not what all the different modes of reasoning are called, but the fact that the process relies on careful, logical consideration of how evidence supports or does not support an idea, of how different scientific ideas are related to one another, and of what sorts of things we can expect to observe if a particular idea is true.

If you are interested in learning about the difference between induction and deduction, visit our FAQ on the topic. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.

The thinking was that hard science used more rigorous, quantitative methods than soft science did and so were more trustworthy. In fact, the rigor of a scientific study has much more to do with the investigator's approach than with the discipline. Many psychology studies, for example, are carefully controlled, rely on large sample sizes, and are highly quantitative.

To learn more about how rigorous and fair tests are designed, regardless of discipline, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide. It's true that some scientific ideas are so well established and supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned. However, even these established ideas are subject to modification based on new evidence and perspectives. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.

One month the newspaper warns you away from chocolate's saturated fat and sugar; the next month, chocolate companies are bragging about chocolate's antioxidants and lack of trans-fats.

There are several reasons for such apparent reversals. First, press coverage tends to draw particular attention to disagreements or ideas that conflict with past views. Second, ideas at the cutting edge of research e. This is a normal and healthy part of the process of science. While it's true that all scientific ideas are subject to change if warranted by the evidence, many scientific ideas e. To learn more about provisionality in science and its portrayal by the media, visit a section from our Science Toolkit.

Observation is critical in science, but scientists often make inferences about what those observations mean. Observations are part of a complex process that involves coming up with ideas about how the natural world works and seeing if observations back those explanations up. To learn more about how scientific knowledge is built, visit our section How science works. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

In fact, hypotheses, theories, and laws are rather like apples, oranges, and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered. Hypotheses are explanations that are limited in scope, applying to fairly narrow range of phenomena. Theories are deep explanations that apply to a broad range of phenomena and that may integrate many hypotheses and laws. To learn more about this, visit our page on the different levels of explanation in science. But of course, that's not quite how it works.

Scientific ideas are judged not by their popularity, but on the basis of the evidence supporting or contradicting them. A hypothesis accepted by "most scientists," may not be "liked" or have positive repercussions, but it is one that science has judged likely to be accurate based on the evidence. To learn more about how science judges ideas , visit our series of pages on the topic in our section on how science works. In fact, science gains as much from figuring out which hypotheses are likely to be wrong as it does from figuring out which are supported by the evidence.

Scientists may have personal favorite hypotheses, but they strive to consider multiple hypotheses and be unbiased when evaluating them against the evidence. A scientist who finds evidence contradicting a favorite hypothesis may be surprised and probably disappointed, but can rest easy knowing that he or she has made a valuable contribution to science. In science, gathering evidence to determine the accuracy of an explanation is just as important as coming up with the explanation that winds up being supported by the evidence.

In fact, most scientific studies don't reach "firm" conclusions. Scientific articles usually end with a discussion of the limitations of the tests performed and the alternative hypotheses that might account for the phenomenon.

In science, studies that carefully analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the test performed and of the different alternative explanations are particularly valuable since they encourage others to more thoroughly scrutinize the ideas and evidence and to develop new ways to test the ideas. To learn more about publishing and scrutiny in science, visit our discussion of peer review. Individual scientists may not be completely objective, but science can overcome this hurdle through the action of the scientific community, which scrutinizes scientific work and helps balance biases.

To learn more, visit Scientific scrutiny in our section on the social side of science.