We are, because you say that picking up a rock and dropping it demonstrates the theory of gravity. I would say that not even a high-school student would write something like that, if asked to think of a way to demonstrate the theory of gravity. Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it? Using the same logic, glass-blowing demonstrates the existence of the element silicon, because, well, if there is no silicon there is no glass, right? Taking a bath is a demonstration of the theory of van der Waals forces. Lighting a candle is a demonstration of Maxwell's theory of light. The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light. Demonstrating the existence of gravity by dropping a rock is a demonstration of superstring theory [*]. Jellyfish are a verification of the theory of evolution. After all, if there was no evolution, there would be no jellyfish, right?
But this is not an isolated gaff on your part. There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to your interpretations of experiments and observations. Here you say that Planck's black-body formula is a convincing demonstration of the wave-particle duality of light. While here, in response to a request about the experimental demonstration of photons, you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.
All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
----
[*] I heard a famous superstring theorist say this.
Of course.
The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light.
No it isn't. Your examples may be considered evidence but not proof. Why is the concept of falsification so hard for you to understand?
you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.
Photons are waves. Particles are waves too. Everything is a wave/particle. I don't see what your problem is.
All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
All of my statements are true. lets take an easy one for you. I claim that you can't prove a theory, you obviously claim that you can. Prove me wrong, prove that God exists. I will wait but I won't hold my breath.