Not necessarily the Measurement Problem, because that deals with quantum mechanics, which is confusing.

What I am saying is that, somewhat like said "Measurement Problem", is that not everything can be measured without changing it's values, properties, etc.

If you don't believe me, let's put this into a more commonly demonstrated principle: Someone decides to start a poll on... some website, and begins to ask the question "Which is your favourite color; red or blue?". Now, people before this may have had downright different preferences and did not like one or the other- their favourite colour may have been green, or turquoise... or orange. But simply put, those are not allowed by the poll's binary "Red or blue?" question. Therefore, there are going to be people who reply inaccurately, by saying that either red or blue is their favourite colour, and not whatever it may truly be. Though there are going to be people who can reply Red or Blue accurately, that does not apply to everything, and most people, who are very "Go with the Flow" and did not hold either opinion before, are going to change their preference to one or the other- or so it may seem. Because if Red and Blue are the only options available, it won't be very accurate if there are other variables, will it?

And that's really not the only example there is. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to understand something if it somehow either prevents itself from you observing it, or more commonly, the one observing it limits his own understanding to a number of things it could be.

Allow me to give you another example:

One day, a man named "Bob" is walking down a street minding his own business. When all of a sudden, he feels a sharp pain, glances towards where he felt it, and noticed a small, white object (roughly six millimeters in diameter) bouncing off of him. He assumes, due to being shot by one, that an irresponsible child is firing at him with an airsoft gun (which generally fire white, small, plastic projectile). And decides to run. However, it may have been a series of other things, such as:

>A small hailstone impacting him due to a brewing storm

>An insect or bug that bit him, and flew away afterward.

>A type of nut or berry from a nearby tree that fell on a sensitive, previously inflicted welt.

>Something else

Sad truth is, we really can't tell for certain. Usually, people limit things to being what they "know" to be possible, and consider the most commonly perceived cause to be the answer. The impulsive thought process goes much like the following:

>Suchandsuch has always been the cause of Whatever.

>Whatever happened.

>Suchansuch, therefore, has caused Whatever.

However, the only way to confirm this is by actually investigating to see what the cause is- which also means that "Evidence" will potentially be corrupted, and so on. And if it's been the cause before, after multiple tests, then it won't seem like it's necessary to test and see what the cause is again. Keep in mind, this has been proven to be the cause of how people become susceptible to things, and lower their guard in some circumstances- though that's questionable too, isn't it?

However with that said, the scientific method, sadly, can only go so far before it becomes incorrect. It uses what is perceived as knowledge and truth, and applies them to what are believed to be working methods of testing to prove or disprove hypotheses theories, and other related things that are created to supposedly explain phenomena. And simply put, some theories today are really no better than theories of the past such as Humorism and Classical Elements. Example; they could both be considered true in part, and were scientifically proven in ancient times, but are not nearly as agreed upon today. This is mainly due to how we now have about a hundred different medical "sciences", and the periodic table of elements today. If you look at Humorism, it is not really all that effective as modern medicine, though a few things it did worked, and as for Classical Elements- just about all the elements on the Periodic Table could be classified into one of them (Except Fire isn't an atom, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, or play a role in chemical reactions).

So, all in all, just because something seems true and is "Proven" due to each and every one of it's observations and knowledge being in agreement, that doesn't mean it's wholly unhampered with, or even correct at all. I, honestly, wouldn't be surprised if almost all the scientific theories and so-on agreed upon today are largely, if not conclusively disproved within my lifetime.

Just my thoughts, though.

-Ngakunui