Do you really think we can say for certain that the Earth is not flat, but that we can't say for certain that the Earth is roughly spherical? Because that is what is being argued.
We can refine that to being roughly an oblate spheroid ... in the end we'd end up with a variable shape depending on the position of the moon and sun ... and hot spots and ... (I don't think there is a single shape involved eh?).
Each step of the way we move closer to what in reality exists. Yes we
can definitely rule out flat, it
has been invalidated.
Invalidation means that we no longer need to consider a flat earth within the realm of possible reality, as we hone in on what that reality is.
That would be the scientific process if it had happened that way, but it didn't. Scientists did not look at the data and say, "Aha, it disagrees with our theory about neutrinos, and therefore the theory is wrong."
It seems to me that you are arguing that they didn't make any changes at all to accommodate the data while pointing out that they made changes to accommodate the data. What part of evaluating all the elements that go into the prediction that did not come to pass to see where the error in making the prediction came from is NOT covered by what happened? This includes all theories involved.
Of course the more theories that are involved in a prediction can muddy the picture of which theory is falsified by a failed prediction -- this is the fault of using multiple theories before they have been validated than the fault of the theory.
The problem with your comment is that essentially all of modern science is built of theories on top of theories on top of theories.
My quibble is that some being used (especially in physics it seems to me) are without sufficient validation to qualify as more than a hypothesis and this leaves the structure more like a house of cards so you don't really know which card caused the house to fall. There is a difference in degree when using theories that have passed many prediction invalidation tests to build new theories and in using new ones that are barely out of the box.
What I am arguing is that falsification is not the essence of science, and that disproof is just as problematic as proof.
And you have failed to make your point. Repeating your assertion does not make it any more valid. The example you provided showed that invalidation occurred when the data did not match the prediction, that a change in a theory was made as a result. It was not the one that was used to make the prediction but it still occurred. Bad information was still ruled out and we are more honed in to what the possibility of reality is than before.
We also still end up with the point that IF they had not found any error in the foundation and structure of the house of cards that the top theory that was the source of the prediction would have been falsified by the data. Now they need to make new predictions to test the validity of the theories and see where that leads us in the quest for knowledge of reality.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
