Every piece of metal conducts electricity.

So I keep on giving evidence

that the piece of metal that I am able to observe conducts electricity.
All pieces of metal conduct electricity, the hypothesis has been proved.

Linguistic analysis: what does it mean whenwe say prove? Needs proof-
> needs DEDUCTIVE PROOF, that you can deduce FULLY the truth. So
you can never prove a theory to be true, logically, even if you
do it over and over again with the same result.

The hypothesis involves an assertion about pieces of metal that are not
yet examined or observed. There might be pieces of metal that we
havent observed yet that do not conduct electricity. You make a very
wide generalization and assertion based on a finite sample set.

What justifies your faith in the quality of inductive reasoning? What

justifies induction? The traditional idea is that we assume that nature is
uniform. We appeal to the uniformity of nature. But how do you know
that nature is uniform? Using inductive evidence again. IT IS
CIRCULAR.

Popper believes in that, and so he rejected induction. Its not full proof,
in the sense of decution. Appealing to past observations legitimately
permit us to make conclusions about things we have not yet
experienced.

In geometry proving is deductive. We dont prove theories, we prove

theorems and azxioms. We prove that those postulates NECESSARILY
FLOW from geometry, and not because of any observation. Bertrand
Russel said that Mathematics is a part of Logic.
Falsification is much better than that of confirmation. First, by saying
that induction is not the way to justify our scientific theories. Secondly,
he says that even though you can never prove theories to be true, you
can at least logically prove them to be false. Hindi confirmation ang
relationship ng evidence to the hypothesis. The relation of evidence to
hypothesis should be DEDUCTIVE. To disprove a hypothesis.

TESTS MUST NOT BE DONE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONFIRM THE

HYPOTHESIS, BUT TO FALSIFY IT. So if you do an experiment and it
turns out to be true, then that only serves as corroborating evidence
for the truth of the hypothesis, NOT A CONFIRMATION OF THE FULL
TRUTH. However on the flip side, if it turns out to be false, then
DEDUCTIVELY THE HYPOTHESIS IS NECESSARILY FALSE. The
corroborating evidence is important , but they remain to be
CONJECTURAL (and will always remain as such); valid only in the
context of an attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

The superiority of Poppers view seems to be illusory. Can falsification

really be conclusive and can confirmation never really be conclusive?
There can be strategies to remove falsifiability. In this case, what is
being questioned is the OBSERVATION, the integrity of evidence as
evidence, instead of the THEORY itself. You cant say that the
falsification is conclusive because THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE
ISNT CONCLUSIVE. This is why the alleged superiority of the
conclusiveness of falsification is just an empty boast.