 Many philosophers of science have been skeptical about the possibility of such “crucial experiments”. Most famous are the arguments provided by Pierre Duhem (1905), who claimed that crucial experimental are impossible (in physics) because, even if they succeed in eliminating a false hypothesis, this does not prove that the remaining hypothesis is true. Scientists, unlike mathematicians, are never in possession of a complete set of hypotheses one of which must be true. It is always possible that the true hypothesis has not yet been conceived, thus eliminating all but one hypothesis by crucial experiments will not necessarily lead to the truth.