Can any investigative process, including scientific research produce absolute certain results or conclusions?

Question

Why or Why not?

Answer 1

I'm going to say no because when conducting an experiment there are so many variables that need to be controlled- variables that you may not even know of at the time you do the experiment. That, and doing research isn't as simple as looking something up on the computer for the scientific community. Once an observation or experiment has been made, scientists have to identify what is being observed. Take light, for example. For a very long time, it was known that when you pass white light through a glass prism you get colored light. Nowadays, we believe white light is comprised of the colors of the rainbow. But, back before and during Newton's time, people believed white light was the purest and the reason it produced different colors was because the prism was corrupting, if you will, the light.

Answer 2

Good question. As the other respondants have already said (much better than I could put it), no, you can't. No matter how controlled a certain experiment is, you simply cannot recreate a situation exactly.

Putting my own two cents into this, I am an anthropology major, working on mostly the physical aspect. I am taking an osteology class where we are working on case studies of real skeletons kept in our lab, both archaeological and forensic. For lab reports, we are given ways to determine age, sex, ancestry, and stature, among other physical attributes that can be determined through the skeleton. And let me tell you, it is far from simple, and far from absolute. For instance, you can never be absolutely certain that a skeleton is male or female; there are traits you can look for, but these can be ambiguous. For age, you always get a range, NEVER an exact number. For ancestry...well, I'm not even going to get into ancestry, otherwise I would be ranting about it for ages (I hate ancestry determination...hate, hate, hate it). For stature, again, you always get a range. Also, not all osteologists can agree on the same kinds of determinations. Basically, the way you categorize a skeleton almost depends on who you talk to. For instance, some folks consider skeletons fifteen years of age (age at death, that is) and above to be "adult" skeletons. Some consider twenty-year-olds "adults." Like I said, it depends on who you talk to.

I realize, of course, that this is just anecdotal based on my own field. But it's just one example of a scientific study.

Answer 3

As the poster ahead of me stated by its definition you can only really create hypothesis that seem to describe reality more accurately, but can never "prove" anything by the very defintion of the scientfic method, as it relies on the ability to keep refining results by falsifing hypothesis. This is of course not to say that we do not all accept something such as gravity exist and can be described as accelerating items toward Earth's center at 9.8m/s^2, but it does mean that we can not "prove" it using the scientific method, only create a working and acceptable hypothesis. I do not wish to spend to much time on this concept because I think it has already been explained quite well in previous answers. I would like to point you in a direction for further answers however.

While Thomas Khun's work has become somewhat less cited more recently in the field of anthropology thanks to articles by the like of David Meltzer regarding paradigms role in Archeology, I think he still is an interesting and required read for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss a question like this. While we may not see all of his ideas play out in current academia, they are thought provoking and helped mold a generation of students critically approach the philosophy of science.

While I generally dislike quoting wikipedia, I think you deserve a more succinct summary than I can easily provide without rambling. "Kuhn's approach to the history and philosophy of science has been described as focusing on conceptual issues: what sorts of ideas were thinkable at a particular time, what sorts of intellectual options and strategies were available to people during a given period, and the importance of not attributing modern modes of thought to historical actors. Taking this general stance, Kuhn's book argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities." - Wikipedia article on SSR by Khun

I hope this answer gives you something others might not have brought you, and I really hope you get a chance to follow up on it.


Edit: While I agree with the posters under me that results can be verified or reproduced, I do not think that the answer you are giving is really what the question is asking. I might be misinterpreting the question, but it is asking for ABSOLUTE certain results, which, if you read Kuhn, we may never have. Paradigms come and go. So yes, you can "prove" results, but you cannot "prove" a theory if you are actually doing science the correct way. This is a point that Kuhn harps on as he did not really integrate that into his own understanding until later in his grad-career. Gardengallivant actually seems to be using examples that Kuhn uses also, so maybe we're talking about the same thing in different terms. Or speaking through each others paradgims. (That was a SSR reference.)

Answer 4

Definately, results can be empirically verified.
“Sound science” is a popular term. Though it means different things to different people. When used to support a position on a controversial issue or decision, sound science generally means “I’ve got the facts on my side.” But often questions are raised such as: Whose facts? What is their source? Are the data reliable? Is the interpretation biased?
Sound science can be described as organized investigations and observations conducted by qualified personnel using documented methods and leading to verifiable results and conclusions.
Sound science should not be confused with facts or information that are generally accepted or readily believable. Major breakthrough discoveries in science over the centuries have at times conflicted with prevailing wisdom and beliefs. The biochemist Hans Krebs (who described a major biochemical process that cells use to convert energy) and the geneticist Barbara McClintock (who discovered that genes may change locations on a chromosome) are among the Nobel Laureates whose work was initially dismissed by colleagues as too radical. As their work was carefully reviewed, reproduced by other scientists, and verified by other approaches and independent lines of evidence, their findings were indeed found to stand the test of time. Results must be verifiable by reference to the real world
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Science requires only one investigator to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world not with reference to opinion.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

If you question technical information look for certain factors;
Proof in science is rarely absolute but more often is based on evidence available at the time. Terms such as “always,” “only,” or “never” are rarely used by conscientious communicators. Measures of the confidence of a statistic or observation (e.g., standard deviation, standard error, or confidence limits) help readers weigh the reliability or significance of a result.
People often draw incorrect conclusions from anecdotal evidence, especially when presented in a familiar or appealing manner. Many public-speaking courses emphasize the importance of personalizing a speech or debate to be more convincing. While personal stories and testimonials may add color and enliven a technical study or finding, they do not constitute a means of validation.
Studies based on a small group of subjects can lead to false conclusions. When the number of subjects studied or number of experiments repeated is not stated or seems low, it is usually difficult to judge a study’s validity. Well-communicated technical studies give some indication of the sample size (n) of a study, often reported as a number, e.g., n = 97.

Answer 5

No, Absolutely not! Science is based upon the falsifiability of testable statements. Answers must be able to be disproven (one reason why creationsim cannot be science - it depends on the unobservable). Absolute knowledge breaks this principle. They only way you can know something "absolutely" is through faith or belief.

Answer 6

The results can be certain and verifiable (i.e., independently reproducible): it is the theory which is always open to falsifiability, with more experiments.

Answer 7

I'm not sure.I'll think about it