Is Science Always Right? Understanding What Makes Research Truly Scientific

In the modern world, science is seen as the ultimate beacon of truth. When we hear an expert announce, “A new study proves…” we tend to accept it as fact. But is everything labeled “scientific” necessarily true? To answer that, we need to look at the foundations of scientific truth itself.

How Science Actually Works

Imagine an astronomer in the 17th century. Night after night, he observes the stars and planets, records their positions, and gathers enormous amounts of data. This is the first stage of science — the collection of empirical data, information drawn directly from reality through observation.

But like Newton after him, the astronomer doesn’t stop there. He begins to look for patterns — laws or formulas that explain why celestial bodies move as they do. He forms a theory, a model that makes predictions about future movements. This is the second stage: analysis and formulation of laws.

If a theory is true, it must survive the test of reality. Other scientists check its predictions, perform experiments, document results, and search for contradictions. Only if the theory passes these tests do we call it “scientific.”

A theory is only scientific if it can be proven wrong. If it’s impossible to test or disprove, it’s not science — it’s belief. This is known as the principle of falsifiability. Only when a claim can be tested and potentially refuted can it be called “scientific.”

Ranking the Sciences by Their Precision

According to this principle, scientific fields can be ranked by how easily their claims can be falsified.

At the top are mathematics and physics, where every theory can be tested clearly and repeatedly. Below them are chemistry and biology, where experiments are less exact. Further down are the social sciences and history, where “truth” often depends on interpretation and public consensus more than on hard evidence.

Consider two academic conferences — one in history, the other in physics:

• At the history conference, two researchers debate whether a certain ancient custom truly existed. Each offers interpretations of written sources, but without direct evidence, the audience’s opinion often decides who “wins.”

• At the physics conference, a scientist demonstrates an experiment showing how particle motion changes under specific conditions. There’s no debate — the evidence speaks for itself.

The difference? In physics, you can prove or disprove your theory.
In history, you often can’t.

When “Scientific Claims” Meet Religion

Let’s bring this closer to home. We often hear statements like:

• “There’s no scientific evidence for the Exodus from Egypt.”

• “Scholars claim the Bible was written in the Second Temple period.”

• “Evolution has been scientifically proven.”

Do these claims actually meet the standard of scientific falsifiability?

The Limits of Archaeology

How can an archaeological theory be proven false? In physics, it’s easy: if one scientist claims a particle behaves a certain way, others can repeat the experiment.

In archaeology however, there are no predictions to test — only interpretations of findings.

“There’s no evidence for the Exodus.” This claim assumes we should find physical evidence in the desert. Is that reasonable?
Archaeological remains are usually found in cities — permanent settlements that preserve structures and artifacts. The Israelites, on the other hand, were nomads traveling through the desert in tents.
So what exactly are we supposed to find — a cooking pot buried ten meters deep in the middle of nowhere?

Sometimes, the absence of evidence simply reflects the limits of archaeology, not the absence of historical events.

The Flexibility Problem in Evolution

The same logic applies to evolution. We cannot reproduce millions of years of evolutionary change in a laboratory. Scientists therefore rely on interpretations of fossils and short-term experiments designed to simulate evolution.

For example, experiments on bacterial populations show that mutations can lead to changes and adaptations over time — a phenomenon called microevolution. However, this only demonstrates variation within a species, not the formation of an entirely new one. Even then, such results have only been observed in microorganisms, not in complex species — and therefore the jump from microevolution to macro-evolution remains unproven.

There’s also a deeper logical issue. Evolutionary explanations tend to fit any outcome. If a species doesn’t change, it’s because it was well adapted. If it does change, it’s because it wasn’t. Either way, the theory “works.”

This makes evolution unfalsifiable — it can’t be proven wrong, because every possible observation can be explained away.

The “Burden Principle”: A Case Study

Consider the deer. Its large, heavy antlers can weigh up to 40 kilograms, which is a serious survival disadvantage. Why, then, did evolution produce them? Scientists offered a creative explanation referred to as the “handicap principle.” The antlers serve as a costly signal — the heavier they are, the more they demonstrate the male’s strength and genetic superiority to females.

In other words, no matter what’s observed, the theory always adapts. If something helps survival — it’s evolution. If it hurts survival — it’s also evolution. A theory so flexible cannot be falsified — and therefore, by definition, is not a scientific law.

The Unproven Randomness

Evolution also relies on random mutations in DNA. But can randomness itself ever be proven? Even if we find no cause, that doesn’t prove none exists. Since we can never demonstrate that mutations are truly random, the randomness assumption in evolution remains just that — an assumption, not a proven fact.

Not All “Science” Is the Same

Once we understand the principles of science, we realize that not all fields are equally scientific. In less precise domains such as archaeology, paleontology, or evolutionary biology, results depend heavily on interpretation and control of public discourse.
Those who control the discourse often have ideological motives shaping how the “truth” is presented.

This doesn’t mean archaeologists or evolutionary biologists aren’t doing good work, but their margin of error is simply too wide to treat their conclusions as hard science.

Ultimately, much of what passes for “scientific truth” in these fields is often driven by agenda, but not by the strict criteria of science itself.

Real science is built on testing, refutation, and evidence — not consensus, rhetoric, or ideology. The next time someone claims, “Science has proven…” — it’s worth asking: Which kind of science?
And, can it really be proven wrong?