- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The Standard Model predicted the Higgs Boson and its qualities nearly perfectly, even though for decades we could not actually observe one, because it required an incredibly intricate machine to do fucky things with matter that cost nearly $5 billion. If it isn't correct in at least fundamental respects, then how could it predict something so exactly? Similarly, Newton's Laws of Motion were never proven "wrong," but merely incomplete. They're still used for all kinds of things at the level where they accurately predict results. We got to the Moon with them.We do have observational evidence of black holes; gravitational lensing is the most well-known, but there are various others as well such as the detection of gravitational waves (which also function as evidence for general relitivity by the way). Of course you can't "see" a black hole in the same way as you can "see" a star, but you can observe all sorts of effects that are extremely hard to explain otherwise.
It's actually very rare for fundamental things described as "laws" to be proven wrong, or even "theories." Where science gets it wrong is generally very specific things where there is a strong incentive to get it wrong, i.e. saying cigarettes aren't bad for you, climate change either doesn't exist or has absolutely nothing to do with pouring amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or for that matter exaggerating climate change for similarly political reasons, "cold fusion," or similar specific application things.
The big stuff is generally very accurate and rarely overturned. There is just no Grand Unified Theory of Everything that completely explains all things. Eventually any model runs into phenomena that it can't explain adequately.