the evidence from an experiment in a lab supported the idea of anti-matter. they concluded through testing that what they made was antimatter sure.

But those tests, to grossly simplify (very terrible simplify) are like testing if a lightbulb works. You've got to hit the switch. You conclude that the lightbulb works in this particular case and your test, which may not have produced a working light bulb bud did, supports the idea that the lightbulb works. But you set up a test in which your hypothesis can fail; that's what science is about. That's what i meant by there has to be the option for setting up an experiment where failure is an option.

Science does NOT have facts in the way most people use the connotation of it. You know, just like its a "fact" that there are 9 planets in the solar system like we wera all taught in elementary school. What science has instead of "facts" are the closest way we have to understanding the universe.

Do you know how things become a law in science?
Someone comes up with an idea after experimentation or observation. Someone else tries to replicate an experiment, looking at possible lurking variables. They all try to find a way to prove the fucking thing wrong. It holds up, cool its a validated hypothesis. The god damn thing wont be proven wrong, and support for it just keeps building thorugh these failed attempt at debunking it, Well god damn its holding still.

Further testing, further attemps at killing it fail and it may become a theory. If a theory can be seen in everyday life and events like gravity, then its known as a law. Science comes from the ability to set up an experiment where its possible to try to prove it wrong. ITs okay if it fails but science is NOT THE SEARCH FOR SUPPORT.