Yes, "valid" to all determined to defend and promote the establishment at all costs for whatever reason.
Wait, what? Science is based on promoting the establishment? Then why has Alfred Wegener's work on continental drift been accepted as valid science today, even though at the time of his observations, the scientific consensus was that mountains and features on Earth were based on contractions of the early Earth? Surely if the scientific community wanted to promote the establishment, they would have never accepted Wegener's work up til today.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
Why has Einstein been able to overturn some assumptions of Newtonian physics by demonstrating through the math (and later scientists doing experiments) that gravity and acceleration has the ability to affect time itself, and this became part of the scientific knowledge?
https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity/
Why has Oparin's experiment overturned Darwin's ideas of life starting in muddy ponds?
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_oparin.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/did-life-evolve-in-a-warm-little-pond/
Why is the scientific establishment debating over whether the KT extinction was the final elimination of the dinosaurs at this very moment?
https://www.livescience.com/693-scientists-debate-dinosaur-demise.html
The process of science is not promote the establishment, but rather to discover more and possibly overturn our previous assumptions.
Considering all the "Prove it" and "cite your source" demands made here, ever seen an electron?
Sight is not the only quality that we can use to determine whether something exists or not. JJ Thomson discovered the electron after putting an electrical charge through a cathode tube, and used opposing magnets. When he saw the beam bend towards the positive side, that indicated that there was a particle with an electric charge. He then figured out the mass of said negative particles by seeing how the beam bent based on the charge and using a mass to charge ratio. He tested this many times with different metals and components in the cathode ray tube, and found that this phenomenon keeps on happening. He deduced that there must be subatomic particles with a negative charge that are smaller than any other particle discovered previously. And of course, this idea was incredibly edgy among the scientific community at the time, but after further tests by other scientists, the electron became accepted science.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...cture/a/discovery-of-the-electron-and-nucleus
We don't need to know what they look like. Some things are not visible to the human eye, even with visual aids such as microscopes. On this similar line of thinking, how do we know breezes exist? We can't see those.
Has any scientist ever seen one? How about a theoretical physicist?
Specialized machines are much better for the job, as they can detect more minute stimuli like an electron.
Does each one really possess a mass? A charge? A "spin"?
See my example above about JJ Thomson.
Spin was discovered by Goudsmit if I am not mistaken, although there was a contention on if some grad students would have gotten the discovery.
https://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html
How about all that supposed smaller junk? Quarks, gluons,..
Originally, such subparticles were once just untest math on paper, but with the use of particle accelerators and detection machines, one can find such particles in real life. I will not pretend to understand the experiment that was done by Panofsky, but if you are a very smart individual, feel free to read here.
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=1&secNum=5
The math seems to work out so far? Fits their apparent movement after collisions? That's it?
Sounds like somebody knows more: you, or the thousands of physicists working on their research. I can't comment because I am not smart. I'm just stating what happened with the scientists and their work. Feel free to talk to some physicists about their work.
The few skeptical scientists in question had/have their honest, alternative explanations for what goes on. They really, really want to believe they're right.
But they don't have the evidence, and papers that have tried to show that climate change isn't real like the Soon and Baliunas paper have misused the data from previous studies.
Said conclusion in order to be officially accepted as science by the science community's internal standards must be published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Thanks for adding some clarification to my statement.