Proof? Well, if someone is claiming a physical artifiact exists, such as a "light ball," then yes, I want at least a doggone photograph or twenty to start the process - they would have made hundreds of photographs if they were indeed studying such an artifact...although, come to think of it, I have been unhappy with my current cell phone carrier, but I digress.
Then there are hypotheses (theories) upon which the scientific method is based. One attempts to bring disparate peices of information (observed or known facts) together into a coherent theory of how things work. Proof is kind of an iffy word there - we have observed facts, but then we must make the possible connection between the observations in the form of a hypothesis. As we get more observations, we can adjust or strengthen our original hypothesis. I would at least expect a logical connection between facts.
Lots of theories out there, and theoretically, until every observation is known, they will remain theories, although our confidence level that a theory is a law can rise pretty high. Look at all of the theories we take for granted that are hypotheses at best and unproven - Grand Unified Theory, Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, String Theory, and of course all the conspiracy theories (with my luck those are the only theories that will actually turn out to be correct in the end
)Andrew
PS - Trickfox - I would love to go to a natural hot springs up there. Just say where.
