But therein lies a big problem as well. If you look through recent scientific journals on physics, studies and theories, all recent efforts in physics pretty much are up for speculation because the evidence is mostly inferential through non-tangible sources. Such as dark matter and dark energy. The evidence to make this theory valid is the fact that it [i]has[/i] to exist. We're still trying to prove gravitational waves exist, and when we do that, technically dark energy will have "proof" but that proof is merely an inference from an inference. We [i]can't observe dark energy and dark matter[/i], so how can we prove its existence directly? Now I mean, there's always "where there's smoke there's fire" but that is only valid for so long. I mean shit, string theory, as reputable as it is made out to be (don't get me wrong, it does make sense) is basically just a math equation we're using to explain an unexplainable universe. The reason why this is a problem, is because modern physics is ridiculously expensive to carry out (think large hadron collider). How is funding going to persist if empiricism is based on whether or not we don't have an explanation for something, so we have to make up something to explain it? (Ex: gravitrons) Given, sometimes we are proven correct, such as the Higgs Boson, but with that proving why we have mass, does not benefit the general public in any way that [i]they can see.[/i] I fear that in the future, this may cause less motivation towards furthering our knowledge, therefor less funding, therefor stunting scientific progression.