On the contrary, I mentioned &#x27;substantiated hypothesis&#x27;. Comprehensive experiments are how a hypothesis becomes substantiated. There&#x27;s no other way. And you rudely accuse me of not reading.<p>Even with an <i>enormous</i> and indefinite number of validating experiments, a theory is still provisional. There is no forever truth. For example consider Newtonian physics. For the 200 years until relativity and quantum mechanics were invented it was the best game in town. 200 years of experiment is pretty comprehensive. We can do experiments today that support Newtonian physics. But it was never &#x27;true&#x27;, because if you look very, very carefully you can find examples where it doesn&#x27;t work.<p>You can not prove things true in science (unlike math), you can only disprove them. Things that resist disproof are held as provisionally true until we know better.<p>So: there is no moment when you &quot;finally know what the truth is&quot;. Hence my disagreement with your post.<p>Scientists know what the truth isn&#x27;t. There&#x27;s a T-shirt slogan for you.