From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > Jim Wilkins wrote:   
   >> "Jim Wilkins"  wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>> Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical   
   >>> measurement that disproves the old system, ...   
   >>   
   >> Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better fit.   
   >> The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions of   
   >> new phenomena that experiments verify.   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment   
   >   
   > A common misconception.   
   >   
   > Experiments/observations _falsify_ or _confirm_ a natural-scientific theory,   
   > they do NOT verify it.   
      
   You stated that *testable predictions* are verified (not theories), which is   
   also what deGrasse Tyson said.  I checked the meaning of that again: "to   
   verify", although based on "veritas", Latin for "truth", can also mean "to   
   check (up)", and thus "to confirm or falsify" which is conceptually correct;   
   in that sense I agree with you (and deGrasse Tyson) as what I stated below   
   means the same.   
      
      
      
   > Because such a theory is always only a model, not the truth:   
   >   
   > The more independently obtained experimental/observational evidence that   
   > confirms a theory, the closer that theory is considered to be a solid   
   > foundation and a scientific truth.  But that does not preclude the theory   
   > from being falsified by another experiment.   
   >   
   > Neil deGrasse Tyson even argues that this realization is why since the 20th   
   > century new theories are not presented as or considered "laws" anymore:   
   >   
   > StarTrel: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore   
      
   Haha, Freudian typo: I was probably to write "Star Trek" because I had   
   written it so often before; but here it is "StarTalk", of course :-D   
      
   >    
   >   
   > [His argument contains a semantic fallacy, though, because those laws were   
   > never considered laws as in jurisprudence, but in the sense of regularities   
   > of Nature, "laws" that *Nature* would obey; so humans "breaking" them, and   
   > not calling them "laws" anymore because "laws are something that you don't   
   > break" is certainly NOT the reason.  That physical laws would be laws as in   
   > jurisprudence is yet another common misconception that, unfortunately, he is   
   > helping to spread there.]   
      
   I think it is important to point out the above, though, so my comment was   
   not without value.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)