gjhfhj
If they are mathematicians they can prove a theorem. In the physical sciences theories cannot be proved. The current theory is the one that fits the experimental evidence more closely than all alternative theories. When a new theory comes along that is more accurate, the old theory is superseded.
One of the main arguments in favor of natural law theory is that even though there is no evidence to prove its existence, it does not mean it doesn\'t exist, and faith is the main vehicle to implementing it.
In science, if you are trying to "prove" a theory (that's confirm it or falsify it), you must use experimental evidence. That is, you use the theory to make a prediction and then try it out. It's no good just to sit around and talk about it.
He was too scared to publish his work because he was afraid of being caught by the Church, which strongly believed in the geocentric theory. Copernicus didn't publish his work until he was on his deathbed. Even when he did published it, it wasn't under his own name, instead under the name of 25-year-old George Rhetis.
Alfred Wegner had 4 theory`s,Climate evidence,Fossil evidence,the continents fitting together like a puzzle,and horizontal movement. The fossils were different types of ancient ferns and Dinosaurs.
Alfred Weneger was trying to prove his theory of Continental Drift. Many other scientists before him had the same theory, but they never could prove it. He had five pieces of evidence.
he didn't have anything to prove
Three pieces of evidence used to prove the theory of continental drift were the fit of the continents' coastlines, the distribution of fossils across continents, and the matching geological formations found on separate continents. These observations supported the idea that the continents were once joined together and had drifted apart over time.
They rejected Wenger's theory for half a century because he didn't have the evidence to prove his theory No, He did have evidence to prove his theory, they just did not believe him- TheSystem because of their lack of knowledge of the Earth He actually had evidence, but it was actually because the hypothesis interferred with their own hypothesis about how mountains form.
They both thought the same theory but Dalton had evidence to prove it, unlike Democritus.
True.
i believe that the kracken really does exist, but we have no real evidence to prove that theory.....
There was no evidence to prove it
Yes, because if enough people prove the hypothesis and produce evidence supporting it it can become a theory.
To figure out formulas and equations and claculations to prove or add evidence to a theory.
A theory.
An idea that explains something could be called a theory. Good scientific theories are falsifiable which means you could prove it to be false. You can never prove a theory to be true, you can only provide evidence that supports the theory.