Question

Popper argues that scientists can never prove their theory no matter how much data they collect. Nevertheless, he insists that scientific reasoning can be based on logical principles and be distinguished from pseudo-scientific reasonings. Why cannot scientist prove their theories? How can scientists, despite not being able to prove a theory right, still make rational decisions?

Answer 1

As we know, every theory depends on the contemporary evidence and faiths of the people who support it, for example, Ptolemy had proposed the theory of the geocentric universe and people believed it at the time but later many scientists denied his evidence and hypothesis because they proposed new evidences.

Science believes in experimental methods and no scientist can say that his experiments and sample are universal because it is possible that new evidence can neglect the old approach with the help of another hypothesis. Theories satisfy hypothesis and this hypothetical evidence may modify or completely changed so that Popper argues that scientists can never prove their theory because data is limitless and it depends on the approach and conditions whether data is accurate and valid or not.

Theories also include some criteria and if we change the criteria, theories can be neglected. The theory of relativity is still in use but if someone comes with new and valid evidence propose a new theory and neglect older one. We have a lot of examples when modern approach tested the theories and rejected it with the help of new data analysis, such as atomic theory, theories of intelligence and mental developments.

Data analysis and hypothesis verification support every theory and if we get new data and analysis, we can reject pre-proposed theories. This process helped us to determine new possibilities and ideas. A conservative try to stick with their idea at any condition but scientists work with data and liberal approach so that we can say that no theory is accurate and valid.