TIA, for all his/her wisdom (put me right on the gender issue here, somebody), did indeed make a very woolly statement there. Let me press you further, as you appear to have adopted a quasi-religious fervour about this particular remark, almost as if it had emanated from the quill of a gospel writer. What science does the remark refer to? The process of science (not provisional - it definitely occurs)? The history of science? Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? Scientists? Evidence? The findings of science? You think, perhaps, that every finding of science in history is, er, provisional? Why's that, then? Because you suspect that what I see as red is exactly the same as what you see as blue? That there must always be an alternative explanation on the table for everything, no matter how improbable (now there's religion for you!)? Are you talking about the nuts and bolts of everyday science, technology and medicine as they affect all our lives, as practised in laboratories by technicians who just want to get home for their tea? Or are you, instead, in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies? You set this statement against mine as though the two are sharply at odds with each other, yet you, as an alleged scientific thinker, appear to have forgotten that an equivocal statement can't actually be the opposite of anything. Black can be the opposite of white, but grey can't be the opposite of anything. You really are a most tedious fellow, you know. Can't you go off and join a cricket team or something?