That was not my experiment, you do your own in a vacuum.
I know it wasn't the experiment that YOU (hypothetically) conducted.
That's exactly the point. OTHER experiments, show that your theory isn't as robust as you thought it was. So, how "factual" is your theory, really?
But still, in even stating that, you are saying that "proves" it's not factual...how can that be when your particular science proves nothing?
Note the word "not" there.
That means that it's a
disprove of your "theory".
Also: nobody ever said that "science proves
nothing". Rather, what is said is that "science doesn't prove
scientific theories".
This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.
Except that it is. Your "theory" was that paper will burn when put into a torch. I just showed you one specific circumstance (and I can show you MANY others as well, btw) where that is simply not correct.
Therefor, your "theory" isn't robust, complete, accurate,....
So you're saying I have to do every experiment possible on the paper in order for the one that I chose to do to be complete?
I'm saying that, if you wish to take a
scientific approach, then you need to change a few things. I told you that your approach here wasn't scientific.
You made up a rather superficial theory and then conducted an experiment designed specifically to confirm that superficial theory.
That's not how science is done.
First, you build a hypothesis. Then you indeed conduct experiments. Here's the thing.... when you do experiments to test a hypothesis, you don't just seek to confirm it. Instead, you
actively try to refute it. You don't design tests to validate your idea. Rather, you design your test in such a way that you try to DEBUNK your idea.
So if your idea is that "paper will burn in a torch", you should design your experiment in such a way to try and find circumstances where exactly that WILL NOT happen.
If all your attempts at debunking your idea fail, and the paper indeed burns every single time no matter what, THEN you have a strong and well-supported (NOT proven!) idea.
It's not a fact that the paper burns?
Apparantly not. It doesn't burn in a vacuum.
You know, I expected a laugh but this is so bizarre it's not even funny.
Maybe if you would open up your mind for just an inch and read up a tiny bit on how science is done, you wouldn't find this so bizarre....