What do you mean by strictly speaking?
Germ theory was proven by Pasteur experiments in the 19th century and confirmed by countless of scientists throughout the 20th Century to this day. What more proof do you want when you can literally see bacteria expand and colonize a medium?
Proof has a different meaning in science, compared to layman usage. In science it means absolute proof, and so generally only applies to mathematics.
A good counter example is Newtonian physics. It has/had a massive amount of experimental evidence behind it. It was basically proven. Then a few slight mismatches were found. Those led to both quantum mechanics and relativity. Both disproved Newtonian physics.
As for germ theory. It’s technically been disproven by the existence of viruses, and prions. Both cause infections without germs being involved.
None of that makes germ theory much less useful, just not “proven” in scientific terms.
Viruses and prions fall under the umbrella of germs/pathogens. They did not disprove germ theory. They still align with the idea that pathogens cause diseases. That’s still true.
And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?
What do you mean by strictly speaking? Germ theory was proven by Pasteur experiments in the 19th century and confirmed by countless of scientists throughout the 20th Century to this day. What more proof do you want when you can literally see bacteria expand and colonize a medium?
Proof has a different meaning in science, compared to layman usage. In science it means absolute proof, and so generally only applies to mathematics.
A good counter example is Newtonian physics. It has/had a massive amount of experimental evidence behind it. It was basically proven. Then a few slight mismatches were found. Those led to both quantum mechanics and relativity. Both disproved Newtonian physics.
As for germ theory. It’s technically been disproven by the existence of viruses, and prions. Both cause infections without germs being involved.
None of that makes germ theory much less useful, just not “proven” in scientific terms.
Viruses and prions fall under the umbrella of germs/pathogens. They did not disprove germ theory. They still align with the idea that pathogens cause diseases. That’s still true.
Huh viruses are germs. Germ is a broad term including bacteria viruses and fungi.
And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?