You are half right. Evidence can't prove anything, but it can certainly disprove a theory.
It is the interpretation of evidence through a preferred philosophical paradigm and logical fallacy that leads you to believe you are looking at 'proof' or 'falsification'. There are only philosophical positions, not empirical ones.
I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory.
Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )
You mean like anomalous orbital velocities of stars around the galactic center has disproved the current gravitational model? Or am I correct in that the evidence (anomalous orbital velocities) in no way disproved the theory but instead 'dark matter' was invented because of a philosophical commitment to a certain theory combined w/ fallacious logic?
"I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory."
I know you would certainly like to deny that, wouldn't you? Tell you what, take a starship to a star with an anomalous orbital velocity and report back on the effects of 'dark matter' on your starship during the trip with your evidence or falsification of 'dark matter'. If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.
"Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )"
Good luck. Oh and the farther the start, the better. :-)