You appear to understand how everything is SUPPOSED to work. That's nice. I read it in 5th grade and understood it then. And for the record, I think it should work that way too.
But what I know, is that grant money is often given in the same way that the National Endowment of the Arts decides what is worthy.
But this is all really beside the point. My original post concerned my unwillingness to bet the farm on a particular scientific consensus, when I think that the scientists don't have enough evidence to be presenting their views as public guidance. I know that "undisputed" and "somewhat possible" can both accurately describe the same theory (back to my marble analogy). I really can't see how anyone remotely dedicated to science could have a problem with that.
I gave you how it is.
"when I think that the scientists don't have enough evidence to be presenting their views as public guidance.
You're free to addrress any of the particulars as you would like to.
" I know that "undisputed" and "somewhat possible" can both accurately describe the same theory "
Theories are logical constructs supported by observable evidence. If you have evidense contradicting any theory, you can present it. That evidense and you claim that it invalidates the theory will be evaluated on it's scientific merit. "Undisputed" is a worthless term in science. "Somewhat possible" is a phrase that never applies to a theory. It only applies to hypothesis. In order to reach attain the status of theory, there must be strong evidence. A general theory can only be modified to a more general theory that includes the old theory as a limiting case.