tWin Pedia

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science works under a fallibilistic view. Instead, science is proud to make predictions with great probability, bearing in mind that the most likely event is not always what actually happens. During the Yom Kippur War, cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman was asked to explain why one squad of aircraft had returned safely, yet a second squad on the exact same operation had lost all of its planes. Rather than conduct a study in the hope of a new hypothesis, Kahneman simply reiterated the importance of expecting some coincidences in life, explaining that absurdly rare things, by definition, occasionally happen.^[23]
Theories very rarely result in vast changes in our understanding. According to psychologist Keith Stanovich, it may be the media's overuse of words like "breakthrough" that leads the public to imagine that science is constantly proving everything it thought was true to be false.^[24] While there are such famous cases as the theory of relativity that required a complete reconceptualization, these are extreme exceptions. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science; it is more like a climb than a leap.^[25] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community. For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution, and germ theory still bear the name "theory" even though, in practice, they are considered factual.^[26]
Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that, although the best definition for "knowledge" is contested, being skeptical and entertaining the possibility that one is incorrect is compatible with being correct. Ironically then, the scientist adhering to proper scientific method will doubt themselves even once they possess the truth.^[27]
Stanovich also asserts that science avoids searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the single cause fallacy. This means a scientist would not ask merely "What is the cause of...", but rather "What are the most significant causes of...". This is especially the case in the more macroscopic fields of science (e.g. psychology, cosmology).^[28] Of course, research often analyzes few factors at once, but this always to add to the long list of factors that are most important to consider.^[28] For example: knowing the details of only a person's genetics, or their history and upbringing, or the current situation may not explain a behaviour, but a deep understanding of all these variables combined can be very predictive.