I'm not sure why you disagree with this--it's merely common-sense to note that, with respect to theories, "verified", "refuted", and "demonstrated" are things which are decided at the the level of intellect. Your eyes do not make theoretical decisions for your brain. In seeing a rock fall, your eyes do not decide something about the theory of gravity and inform your brain about it. Rather, it's your reason-enabled brain that makes those decisions. If it were not so, a monkey would be able to "verify" Newton's theory of gravity, because a monkey can observe a rock falling just as well as you can.
Does it really make sense to say that Newton's theory of gravity can be "verified" or "demonstrated" by dropping a rock and observing that it falls? If so, then Newton could have avoided the laborious route involving the invention of calculus and so on, and instead he could have thrown rocks up in the air a thousand times over. Others, observing this, would have to say that his theory of gravity has been demonstrated and verified a thousand times over. Any monkeys who happen to be there would add their howls of approval too.
First of all my only disagreement is with pure reasoning alone and no observation to back it up. That is what you seemed to say a couple of posts back. That is Aristotelian logic, which I disagree with. Pure reasoning and logic can be seductive, as evidence may I present string theory : )
You have also clearly stated that you agree that observation is necessary too. I don't think that we are in any kind of disagreement at all. Sometimes it is simply hard to put everything we want to say in a paragraph or two.