What can evidence do?

No accumulation of evidence proves a universal law; a single counter-example, on the other hand, seems enough to refute it: evidence would then count only by its power to belie, never to establish. But does it even truly refute? When a result contradicts a theory, it is never that theory alone that is at stake, but a whole bundle of auxiliary hypotheses, and one can always sacrifice one of them to save it. Prove, refute, or only make more or less probable: what, exactly, can evidence do?

Anchors: Popper · Duhem · Quine · Lakatos