Comment: But what you are saying is not true.

(See in situ)


But what you are saying is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Prin...

He obviously did do scientific proofs.

The specific tests he conducted are repeatable. The results the tests show are repeatable. Therefore, the specific hypothesis tested was proven.

One can theorize about supernovae and one may be probably correct, based on scientific PRINCIPLES, whether or not one can PROVE a hypothesis. But don't change the subject. You said science is not about demonstrating proofs of hypotheses and that's absurd on its face.