On 23/02/2019 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/2019 11:16, Robin wrote:
On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
failed to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate
astronomical measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.


I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified.Â* (His "Black Holes,
Wormholes and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been
confirmed by experimental evidence time and time again".)


Exactly my point. Even scientists with ****ing PHds really dont
understand what science *is*.


Or just possibly scientists tend to know full well that a theory is
never proved but also know that:

(a) "confirm" can in context mean "support" and "corroborate" (as any
decent dictionary will confirm),

(b) scientists with even the meanest intellects read "confirm" in
context accordingly - ie as shorthand for "support rather than conflict
with", "confirm the predictions of..." etc (which is why journals such
as Nature have no problem with authors using it)

(c) it doesn't pay to be a precious pedant even when writing for fellow
scientists, and is just counter-productive pomposity when writing for
the general public.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid