While that is technically true, correctness can be expressed in terms of available information. If absolute proof of something had to be presented in order for someone to be considered correct, the word "correct" would never be used.
It is almost like there is some flexibility for being correct that exists between
can be and
absolutely. But, I will take "technically true" as an acknowledgment.
Sacrificing some brevity, you could rewrite my earlier statement as: To the best of our current knowledge, Thork is correct. However, that is redundant when you consider that all statements ever made are within the context of available knowledge.
I feel like you are suggesting that Thork's statement was made in the context of available knowledge. This would imply that he has included available knowledge when making the claim. Again, I think we both know he lacks the nuance to consider such a thing. It is much more probable he shoehorned the claim into his anti-update argument because he hasn't seen a headline on aol.com (or whatever old people use for their news source).
I also feel like none of us here have scoured all the available knowledge on this topic to make a concrete claim on this very specific topic.