I have a problem with this. I don't know if is ignorance by me or what is it. But AFAIK, most "truths" on diferent sciences are based purely on statistic eviden

I have a problem with this. I don't know if is ignorance by me or what is it. But AFAIK, most "truths" on diferent sciences are based purely on statistic evidence of a sample. Let's suppose that they do an study on why people cheat. They pick 100 random people on an university and do whatever they have to do to test them. Let's say 90 out of 100 cheat because they get bored. Then these scientist draw a conclusion and say "people cheat because they get bored". That's a very broad term.. and again, afaik is the same with other studies. Is this just one way to do it or is it what every scientist do? How can you possibly englobe everybody to a cause for certain trait based on studying 100,1000, or even 100,000? I can't get my mind atound this.