It seems that someone else has a different POV than yours. Do you want someone to simply agree with you?
My personal sense about this is a combination of the two. Conclusions can be drawn by existing data, but to further cement those conclusions, predictive experimentation/observation is crucial on and ongoing basis. It's why, for example, to this day folks still perform atomic clock tests to suss out a tenet of Special Relativity - Times change, more info is available, instruments/tools get better, smarter, more accurate. I'm not sure wherein lies the problem you're wrestling with.
Some things aren't a matter of opinion.
I agree with you, new experiments can and should be performed, I just think it's also possible to draw conclusions from existing data. He's saying it's categorically impossible despite being given multiple chances to back out. That's not a matter of PoV, that's just someone digging themselves deeper because they don't want to admit they agree with a point a FEer made.
Again and again, I have to repeat that words have meaning. Look up 'scientific proof' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and you will find for the scientific method they are all very well defined. 'Theory' has a very different meaning for the layman than when used in scientific papers, as does proof. You are throwing them around and mixing them up with other concepts.
Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"? Source please?
I am aware. You are not, the context in which you use those words become clear. You have already been called out on treating established science as gospel, as if it were proven mathematically and not justified scientifically. You're just, as ever, wholesale inventing things so you can act superior.
Are you claiming science isn't concerned with the most likely outcome? That seems pretty basic to me. Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible. It'd be far, far weirder if science wanted you to accept the least likely possibility.
It's in fact such a vague and meandering question I've not bothered answering it because I'm not even sure what the question is.
Then ask rather than very blatantly evading it. If you were honest about not understanding the question then you'd have said so before now and specified what wasn't clear, instead you pretended you weren't asked it time and time again, and then turned into a petulant toddler when responding inventing flaws that anyone who tried could see through.
A child could see through your tactics right now. Condescension, acting superior, provoking and then playing victim when I act provoked. It's disgusting.
We have been over all of this many, many times. Science has disproven the typical model of a dragon. Claiming science doesn't care about disproofs, yes, is true, but it is also true that some things are not in line with scientific understanding. Science has not 'disproven,' by your logic, an apple shooting straight up into the sky whenever I let go of it, but if that happened it would certainly contradict scientific understanding. Thus, assuming the current model is accurate (which is after all vital when discussing the world and not adding to a theory), we can assume a giant lizard is not going to be able to fly, something like that is not going to be able to breathe... facts I keep saying, are hardly ambiguous, and yet you have not acknowledged once because doing so has inevitably blown a hole in your points. It's almost like there's a pattern to your tactics.
And then we get truly absurd:
2. "for that to mean something" and "would that error be relevant"
These again are meaningless statements. Mean something? Mean what, to who? Relevant? To what? Pretend we don't know whats going on in your head, and state all the facts, even if they are obvious to you.
You may think you're being smart but I assure you, you're not. Cheap tactics as ever, acting as if you have a point when you're just misrepresenting the blatantly obvious. Things have meaning. When one is in a discussion about science, then something can be relevant to that discussion. This isn't hard.
So:
1. The idea of a dragon is scientifically impossible.
2. There is logic and implication from past tests that leads to that conclusion.
Simple, basic, set-up. You can disagree but at this point it's palpably clear your disagreement would just be yet more whinging and evasion and more often than not a blatant lie.
3. Looking at these tests, we might find that a test was performed poorly, or failed to account for certain possibilities.
4. This would then show the claim in 1 does not follow.
Again, simple, basic, no meandering.
You're saying this is logically untenable for no reason except you made a stupid claim way back and are too deep in now to want to back down. You're saying you'd need to run a test to acknowledge the existence of a poorly done test. That's stupid.
"If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested. Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.
You do realize that isn't an answer, right? You even almost get the quetsion right, but you still can't respond with more than 'because I say so!'
Why? What's gained by the extra test?
Forget everything, let's simplify this even more, brute abstracts so you don't get any more of your god-awful tedious run-around.
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run.
That is what you are saying. You are certifiable at this point.