Final answer:
The statement that theories can be proven by observations alone is false. Scientific theories are considered provisional and subject to change as new evidence emerges. Observation, experimentation, and continuous scrutiny are fundamental to validating scientific theories.
Step-by-step explanation:
It is false that theories can be proven by observations alone. In scientific practice, a theory is deemed likely to be accurate only when a consistent body of evidence supports it. However, even a well-supported theory is never conclusive because new observations or experiments could potentially contradict it. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and making observations to test these hypotheses. If the evidence consistently supports the hypothesis across numerous independent and varied tests, it may evolve into a theory.
Scientific theories are coherent within their conceptual frameworks and must concur with the system of beliefs held by the community of working scientists. Observations always come with the baggage of existing theoretical perspectives, which means that they are 'theory-laden'. Thus, a 'true theory' remains provisional. Evidence that agrees with predictions lends support to a hypothesis or theory but does not conclusively prove it to be true. The validity of theories and laws is always subject to change with future discoveries or counterexamples.
If experimentation fails to verify predictions made by a theory, then that theory must be reconsidered. All scientific laws and theories are tentative and empirical claims must stand the test of ongoing scrutiny. Data that does not support a hypothesis is still useful because it contributes to the refining or restructuring of theoretical frameworks. It's important to understand that experimentation is just one of the methods used in scientific investigations, and different types of inquiry can yield valuable insights.