You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Good point. I should narrow the question to account for theory-based claims. But, in your examples, would experts agree that there are no studies offering supporting evidence, or that the critical experiments haven't been done yet, or something else?
Something like, say, gravity waves is tough to fit into this narrative. Of course, GR had supporting evidence. And Bell et al's pulsar results provided indirect results (in the 1970s, IIRC, though). But it's really not difficult to imagine a world where LIGO found nothing.
In general these situations are very interesting. Instruments sometimes cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So replication is, in the short term, very difficult.
I wrote a short note about some related ideas here: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/science-beyond-individual-understanding/ …
Even when replication is done using a different instrument, there's still the potential for problems. Eg data processing may be done using the same linear algebra libraries (eg BLAS). Those libraries certainly have bugs. What if the bugs cause an artifact mistaken for a signal?
In any given instance this is unlikely. Over the long term I have no doubt at all this kind of thing is going to cause some very embarrassing mistakes.
Something about your proposed narrowing makes me uncomfortable. In disciplines with very strong theory you'd _expect_ to be more comfortable with single confirmations.
Eventually this shades into engineering. When Lockheed designed the first stealth fighter they were in some sense doing an experiment. But they really did know what the radar profile would be, in advance, because the theory at hand was so strong.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
