It's been
conclusively proven false many times, including in our own post on How to Cook a Perfect Prime Rib, where we found that when roasting a standing roast, it in fact lost 1.68 % more juice if it was seared before roasting rather than after!
Even if many instances of agreement with experiment do not prove that a theory is true, it would seem that even a single counterinstance of data which disagrees with theory should
conclusively prove it false.
Not exact matches
Why bring up funding when the funding behind any expert is irrelevant unless it is
conclusively proven that it paid for
false information from that expert?