[waps]

It vastly depends on the actual science which standard of proof is accepted.

For maths, with a 5-sigma result you can maybe get a mention in the "curiosa" section if it's weird enough. It is certainly not considered a valid mathematical result.

For biology, a 1 sigma result is considered pretty good. And due to experimental restrictions, this is actually more strict than medicine requires.

Many science disciplines work with known-wrong theories. Civil engineering for example, works with pre-Newtonian mechanics (not even "turtle mechanics" : in the best simulations a building stands on ground, which stands on a plate which is magically suspended in a "downward" gravity field, not on a planet).

The idea of "this is the standard of proof for 'science'" is a nice one, but it doesn't exist in any reasonable sense. Only the utilitarian definition sticks : we have 100 standards of proof, and if the theory works (or gets enough money if your cynical) we'll find the standard of proof that allows us to call it science.

Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies in the science underpinning, for example, the Higgs boson discovery. We do not actually have rigorous proofs for constructing even natural numbers by the standards of first-order logic. And second order logic has paradoxes that stand unresolved (there is a lot of research to find something "more flexible" than first-order logic, but stricter than second-order that works, but this research has been going on for more than a century and there are no really good candidates, only really bad ones like the famous failure of the Choice axiom)

The standard model doesn't even contain gravity, so if you're being pedantic you could drop a pen from your desk and claim, correctly, that you've just falsified the entire standard model, or at least proven it's incompleteness.

Less pedantically in the physics itself there is the massive open question. The Higgs field only causes inertia, not gravity. Yet the measure of interaction with the Higgs field of any object we've ever measured matches exactly the value we've got for that same object's gravitic interactions. Does anyone believe this to be a coincidence ? Major open hole there.

[ibuildthings]

Falsification and Incompleteness are two different things. Since we reason about physicals system using the language of mathematics/logic; it has be based on certain axiom which cannot be proved or disproved ( Godel's incompleteness theorem ). Though this renders certain statements inside physical theorem non-provable ; it certainly does translate to every claim made by a proposed theory. Further many aspects of physicals systems can be disproven experimentally. ( It is still in active debate if Mathematics should treated as science per se : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_scie... )

While the pen falling from a desk do point out to the incompleteness ( non-Godel sense) of the standard model, which is widely accepted ( http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model : last paragraph ), it does not falsify it. Science is full of open holes, and no one knows ( my bet is against) that it will be completely patched up; but it is the best form of reasoning we have in understanding things, and its ongoing goal is to seek explanations that with the least amount of uncertainty possible.

[waps]

I think we're largely making the same point : that science is largely based on a utilitarian definition of truth. A somewhat more direct way to state that is that scientific truth is simply

"What works for me"

And nothing more.

I do disagree on one point though. The standard model doesn't just "lack" gravity. It describes a world without gravity. Therefore that gravity exists must mean that the standard model is wrong. It describes a universe that is most certainly not the one we live in. I therefore find it hard to describe that theory as true. It is more akin to "currently the best-known least-wrong theory". Even best-known has to be in there since, for example, relativity theory was known long before Einstein got his ball rolling, and Newton's equation was known before the apple fell. So we do likely know about better theories than the standard model, we just currently have no way to distinguish them from either the standard model, or (more likely) the better theories are just failing to get enough attention from well-publicized physicists. Of course, when you don't know exactly which theories are in fact better, their existence doesn't matter.