The scientific method has been the bedrock of human progress for centuries. Through careful observation, hypothesis testing, and experimental verification, science has revealed fundamental truths about the natural world. However, we may be approaching the limits of what experiments alone can teach us. Some frontiers of knowledge may be beyond the reach of direct empirical testing with current technological capabilities. For example, detecting hypothetical elementary particles like gravitons may require particle accelerators larger than the size of Earth. Testing the full implications of theories in quantum information or consciousness could require experiments on enormous scales or complexities that are impractical to implement. Even massive, long-term studies on nutrition and health run into the problem of having too many variables to control and isolate. Does this herald the end of experiments and the scientific method? Not entirely. Experiments will continue to advance knowledge in many domains, especially where conditions can be controlled and isolated. But for some profound mysteries of nature, we cannot rely on empirical data alone given practical constraints. Human reasoning, creativity and logic will need to work in partnership with experiments to push the boundaries of knowledge. Thought experiments and conjectures enabled pioneering thinkers like Einstein to arrive at revolutionary ideas about relativity using only pen and paper. Logical proofs allowed mathematicians to develop entire branches like topology, number theory and set theory with little physical input. And philosophers like Kant induced deep metaphysical theories through rational contemplation alone. As we probe the frontiers of knowledge, the interplay between experimental science and human cognition will likely need to become more sophisticated. Each approach has limits, but together they may provide a path to comprehending realities farther than direct observation can currently reach. Scientists may need to make conjectures to guide experiments at the cutting edge, while philosophers may need to incorporate scientific findings to refine theories. More radically, the notion of falsification itself may need re-examination. Not all meaningful knowledge lends itself to direct falsification, especially in complex domains like nutrition or consciousness. Attempting to force falsifiability may constrain the questions we ask and theories we entertain. A more pluralistic methodology could evolve, incorporating empiricism with less rigid over-reliance on Popperian falsification. We should not fear the “end of experiments” but rather embrace a new synergy between empirical and conceptual tools on the endless frontier of human understanding. With openness to different modes of inquiry, humanity can continue pushing the boundaries of knowledge to illuminate ever deeper mysteries of nature.