Nope. All observations (and the data they produce) is subject to the problems of phenomenology. No theory of science requires any observation in that theory. A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.
Inversion fallacy.
Nope. There are NO data or facts. A theory of science simply is an explanatory argument that is falsifiable (testable against the null hypotheses, using tests that are practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result).
Science by itself has no ability to predict. A theory simply explains, it does not predict. Science is an open functional system. To gain the power of prediction, a theory of science is formalized into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. The resulting equation is also called a 'law'. Only closed functional systems have the power of the formal proof, and the power of prediction that comes with it.
You are discussing tests against the null hypothesis of a theory. Tests designed to try to destroy the theory. As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. The moment such a test is successful at destroying the theory, it is falsified. It is utterly destroyed. It is never modified. A new, similar theory may be inspired, however.
Indeed they are. The tests designed to destroy a theory MUST be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. A theory of science MUST also conform to the requirements of the internal consistency check (required for ALL theories, whether scientific ones or not), and the external consistency check (only required of theories of science).
Internal consistency check: No theory can be based on a logical fallacy. The argument must be a valid one.
External consistency check: No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be False.
No, my bar is very high. I also have a high bar on what I consider acceptable data.
