That is what Aristotle thought. That everything could be determined by reason alone. What we have learned is that abstract reasoning has to be verified by observation, not more 'reasoning.'
What is wrong with saying that Newton's theory of gravity can be verified by computing the orbit of Ceres and comparing with observation?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with saying that it is verified. I verify the TOG every time I go flying. It isn't proof though. Proof is a higher standard than we are able to achieve.
I can prove the existence of the rock, I can't 'prove' the nonexistence (negative) of the rock, you might be hiding it in your fridge.
Why not? All you have to do is open the door, look inside, and note that there is no rock.
Because the rock could be anywhere and I would have to exhaustively search everywhere. That can't be done.
As you know, astronomers discovered that the orbit of Uranus deviated from expectation. Physicists did not throw Newton's theory in the garbage. Rather they looked for an unknown object that was the cause.
Yes, but they were unable to account for Mercuries deviation and Einsteins theory could. I will also agree with you that Einsteins (you didn't state this but I can guess) theory did not disprove Newtons theory, but rather built on it.
The cognitive dissonance in trying to fathom this is a bit much for me. It's like trying to figure out what someone means by 'McCarthy was a communist' or 'Spencer was a church-going Anglican.' Best to let it pass.
What we have learned is that abstract reasoning has to be verified by observation, not more 'reasoning'... I verify the TOG every time I go flying.
It has to be verified by reason and observation. When you observe a rock falling, your eyes do not relate the inverse-square law to your brain. If it were so, there would be no need for Newton, or science for that matter.
Because the rock could be anywhere and I would have to exhaustively search everywhere. That can't be done.
Then what you mean by this "can't prove a negative" canard is this: it is hard to find a needle in a haystack. It seems that the reason you want to phrase it as "can't prove a negative" is because it sounds absurd to say "you can't prove that God does not exist because you can't find a needle in a huge haystack."
In any case, if it can't be proven that God does not exist, why should anyone believe that God does not exist? It's not as if unprovability should make a proposition more plausible.
Yes, but they were unable to account for Mercuries deviation and Einsteins theory could.
So? The point is that the history of science shows that this Popperian "falsification" business is nonsense. Newton's theory is still here and we both agree it was not disproved by what, if Popper's views had any merit, should have been falsifications.
Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?