Question

why is it impossible for scientists to acquire absolute or unquestionable proof for their explanations and conclusions?
○ scientists do not have adequate funding to conduct sufficiently thorough experiments and studies.
○ scientists can only acquire definitive proof for their hypotheses through unethical experimental studies.
○ even well - substantiated theories can be revised if new findings support a different conclusion.
○ it is not possible to conduct both an observational and an experimental study on the same issue.

Explanation:

• Option 1: Funding issues don't relate to the inherent impossibility of absolute proof in science.
• Option 2: Ethical concerns aren't the reason for lack of absolute proof; science aims for ethical research.
• Option 3: Scientific knowledge is tentative. Theories are based on current evidence and can be revised with new findings, so absolute proof isn't possible as new data might change conclusions.
• Option 4: Conducting both observational and experimental studies on the same issue is possible in some cases, and this isn't related to the impossibility of absolute proof.

Answer:

C. Even well - substantiated theories can be revised if new findings support a different conclusion.