Biology questions, easy stuff..?

Question

why can science not prove a universal statement?

what is the difference between the word valid and the word proved? (hint. scientists are seeking predictable and workable answers to problems)

why is a large problem more difficult to deal with than a small one when using the scientific method?

Answer 1

I've actually never heard that science cannot prove a universal statement, but it is probably because there are a lot of variables and it is nearly impossible to account for every variable in every situation.  

A valid argument or hypothesis is one that fits the data, and the current state of scientific knowledge.  If you observe a phenomenon and come up with an explanation that you are unable to prove or have yet to prove, but it stands up to a variety of challenges and is consistent with the body of knowledge, it is valid.  Finding a strong statistical link is a good example.  Designing experiments to test your hypothesis will get you closer and closer to validity, and to proof.

Large problems are harder to solve simply because they are large, there is more to them and there may be a variety of causes leading to a particular effect.  For example many people are investigating the rise in asthma and allergies in the developed world.  People blame over medicating, processed food, pollution, hygiene and other factors.  You could design studies to test the effect of any one of these things, but it's hard to say what causes all cases of allergy, or the overall trend.

Answer 2

There are too many variables for a universal statement to be certain.

Valid is not proved, just possible and not disproved.

Larger problems have more factors and it's harder to isolate an experiment to only dealing with one variable.

Answer 3

because they want play magic to the people in the world, which mean they do not let anyone know the secret,,,since you would pass out if you see the secret.