> Reality is not required to conform to our standards of scientific proof. If we can't observe or manipulate something, there's no way for us to scientifically reason about it. That's tough for a lot of folks to deal with.
The standards of scientific proof are rules to avoid error that we made in the past.
For example with 'Oumuamua, one guy think it is a solar sail, another guy thinks it is made of Hydrogen ice and another one thinks that it is made of very low density dust. We know that two of them are wrong, at least. With a low enough standard, someone can claim that one of the answers is the correct.
For another examples think about low temperature fission or high temperature superconductivity. Well we have strong proof of the later now.
The standards of scientific proof are rules to avoid error that we made in the past.
For example with 'Oumuamua, one guy think it is a solar sail, another guy thinks it is made of Hydrogen ice and another one thinks that it is made of very low density dust. We know that two of them are wrong, at least. With a low enough standard, someone can claim that one of the answers is the correct.
For another examples think about low temperature fission or high temperature superconductivity. Well we have strong proof of the later now.