Quote:

unless you are here to tell me my collegues and I that neutrinos haven't been proven...


I don't know who your colleagues are and neither do I care, as long as they don't do science AND believe that the existence of neutrinos have been proved in any meaningful way. If they do, then I'm a bit worried because that is not serious science. Science is not about proofs...

What if someone someday makes a discovery that refutes the model for the neutrino as it is thought of today. Maybe not all that probable, but still perfectly possible. Was it still a proof then? Of course not! Something even potentially fallible is not based on proof.

Or are your position maybe that you and your colleagues already have all the answers and that no one will ever be able to refute anything as beautiful as the Standard Model? Personally, however, I'm not a religious believer in science as you and your colleagues might be.

Since you, for some unknown reason, try to ridicule me and since some other members in this particular forum maybe aren't very familiar with science, I'd feel more comfortable if I could show them that I'm not alone thinking the way I do. I cut the following from Wikipedia:
Quote:

Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test.



It's not from a fancy book on relativistic quantum gauge field theory so maybe you and maybe some of your colleagues will disrespect it as you disrespect me.