What is often required to disprove a scientific theory?

The correct answer highlights the nature of scientific theories and the process by which they are established or challenged. To disprove a scientific theory, it is typically sufficient to present a single observation or experimental result that is inconsistent with the predictions made by that theory. This concept is rooted in the scientific method, where theories are formulated based on existing evidence and can be tested through observations.

If a single observation contradicts a well-established theory, it prompts a critical re-evaluation of that theory. For instance, if a theory predicts a certain outcome under specific conditions, and that outcome is not observed, the theory may need to be revised or discarded. This process emphasizes the idea that science is self-correcting and relies on empirical evidence.

In contrast, other options listed may reflect common misconceptions about the scientific process. The notion that a vast number of observations are required could imply that science is infallible, while in reality, a single contradictory instance can suffice. Subjective opinions and consensus among scientists, while relevant in discussions of scientific acceptance, do not hold as strong a place in disproving theories as direct observational evidence does. Thus, the robust nature of scientific inquiry allows for theories to be effectively challenged by a single, definitive observation that cannot be reconciled with