Purposefully “vague” or “inconclusive” language like the following examples are frequently used in studies:
“Our study indicates that”
“The findings suggest”
“We postulate to…”
“may stop germs”
Why is this? Is it simply because they literally can’t conclude anything 100%? I read the following quote on a different thread, and perhaps this could somehow lead me to an answer, ” Science cannot prove; it can only disprove”?
Many thanks!
In: Other
That’s usually because a paper is presenting “evidence” of something, not a “proof” of something. What we accept as “truths” in science are often just accumulations of “evidence that indicates X”.
Enough evidence and we can start saying “ok this thing seems to be true”. Then when further research is based on that previous research, and the new research also seems to work out, then that’s further evidence that the previous research it was based on is probably good. 🙂
And so on. Research is validated by real world experiment and application.
Einstein wrote papers that “indicated” the presence of things like time dilation and gravity waves. He didn’t “prove” them as such – experiments we can do, based on his equations, are the actual proof that he was correct.
It is considered bad form for a research paper to say “we conclusively show X” in most cases. There are exceptions, depending on the subject.
All of which is exactly why science is so amazing. It’s thousands of people, all around the world, agreeing to be humble, to propose things and submit their personal, beloved theories to their peers for examination, out of a desire for *truth above personal opinion in all things*. I think that’s pretty amazing. 🙂
And that’s why, if you read any single paper or research article, you take it with a grain of salt, until it has been peer-reviewed – because then you know that other researchers have tried their best to poke holes in it.
And even then, always keep in mind that new research could come along, and add some more valuable insight that could challenge your assumptions. We still know relatively little about most subjects!
For example, until recently we thought that all the matter and energy in the universe was just what we could detect with our telescopes. Then we discovered stuff that we couldn’t actually see, but somehow had a gravitational pull – that’s “dark matter” and we now know there is far, far more of it than anything we can actually see in the universe.
So, in a very real sense, even if we knew everything about the universe we could see and touch, we would actually still only know a tiny percent of everything out there!
That’s the amazing thing about science – it is always changing, always new things being discovered – which is why you can only mostly say “this seems to indicate that”, because tomorrow you could either be proven correct or completely wrong.
It is a kind of humility, knowing that we only have a small boat, in the vast sea of knowledge that stretches out around us…
Ed: Which is to say, there seems to be every indication that’s the case, but there could be other explanations for the phenomena that are either complimentary or contradictory. 🙂
Latest Answers