If the experiments which I urge be defective, it cannot be difficult to show the defects; but if valid, then by proving the theory, they must render all objections invalid.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests.
The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.
In experimental philosophy, we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur by which they may either be made more accurate or liable to exceptions.
The incorrectness and weaknesses of a theory cause other minds to formulate the problems more exactly and in this way scientific progress is made.
I oppose any belief that contradicts experimental evidence as determined by the methods of science. All beliefs not in such contradiction may be considered as faith. Whether faith in a particular belief is beneficial or not is another matter.
There can be theory but, you know, the problem is you've got to be able to test it. So theories are one thing, testing is another.
Sometimes you can fail in an experiment. But if you fail, you still don't stop observing that thing, looking for a better way.
Scientific experiments are expensive, and people are entitled to know about them if they want to. I think it is very difficult to convey ideas.
But, in the name of the experimental method and out of our poor knowledge, are we really entitled to claim that everything happens by chance, to the exclusion of all other possibilities?
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.