The scientific method is a key process of how we acquire knowledge and may shape our understanding of the world. If I am not mistaken, this method has been defined several times during our history.
The scientific method is not free from disadvantages. I don't want to talk about practical issues such as the statistical bias caused by the fact that work that demonstrates effect gets more easily published than work that demonstrates absence of effect. I am asking about the fundamentals of the scientific method.
I am asking whether anything better than the current scientific method could theoretically be achieved? Is there any reason why the current method has to be the best method for acquiring knowledge or can we imagine anything better?
Going into the specific
Typically, I am curious about the process of proving the hypotheses wrong. If I am not mistaken, no hypothesis can be proven correct, we can only prove hypothesis (uncountable) wrong. Such methodology very much follows the method of hypothesis testing in statistics. Taken from my memory of the work I read from Elliot Sober, a long time ago, this method leads to the important issue that one can only discard all the hypotheses that (s)he can imagine, but can never be sure that he would not have missed some hypotheses. One can never prove anything right. One can only prove things wrong.
Can't we imagine a method that would not be based on rejecting hypothesis? Is there a fundamental restriction in how one can acquire knowledge that forces us to use this seemingly sup-optimal method?