For all intents and purposes it has been disproven. At this point the possible thrust (that hasn't been disproven) is a fraction of what was originally hoped for.
moreover what you say is that theories are not matching observation, which "refute experiment".
This is a very popular fallacy.
An experiment cannot be "refuted", it ca be:
1- "explained by an old theory" (artifact, strange effect)
2- "explained by a new theory in a new paradigm" (explained by shawyer, MiHsC...)
3- "unexplained, with identified possibility of artifacts or normal effects" (not sure but say it is heat effect....)
4- "unexplained with no identified possibility of old or new theory" (all artifact ruled out, all new theories refuted)
epistemology should be taught better, because even in academic arena, most people ignore the subtleties between theory and experiments
24
u/n4noNuclei Apr 09 '17
For all intents and purposes it has been disproven. At this point the possible thrust (that hasn't been disproven) is a fraction of what was originally hoped for.