> > The results [on general relativity] still aren't in.
>
>Yes, that's why Einstein called it a theory. In fact he thought its
>inconsistencies were a sign of being incomplete.
The point is you made the flatfooted statement that science is decided by empirical verification, which is simply wrong. And that Einstein thought the theory "incomplete" is something of a misrepresentation. He thought it would be built upon and perhaps replaced, which is not the same thing.
>In 1919, a Quaker astrophysicist,
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington>Sir Arthur Eddington,
>used photographs of an eclipse to prove the general theory of
>relativity (about how gravity will curve a light beam). A student
>asked Einstein if he was happy about the proof. Einstein said he was
>already confident in his work. But what if the images had proved you
>wrong, the student asked? "Well, then, I'd feel sorry for the good
>Lord because the experiment is right," Einstein replied.
If you are wrong, then I feel sorry for us.