Is There Such A Thing As A Scientific Fact? 2

Every now and then (OK - most days) I look at the stats for this blog and find, to my surprise, that the most viewed blogs in the last week aren't usually the recent ones.  My post Is There Such A Thing As A Scientific Fact? (http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-there-such-thing-as-scientific-fact.html) is a case in point as it shows up in the top 6 most weeks despite being 2 years old and only having 5 comments; two of which are mine.

This came back to me this week when I read an article on the BBC site which raises one of the issues I was trying to discuss.  It starts with the conclusive statement:

"Subatomic particles called neutrinos cannot move faster than the speed of light, according to a new report. "

but when you read down the basis for this is "says that because the neutrinos sent from Cern do not appear to lose energy on their journey, they must not have exceeded the speed of light along the way."

Now given that we have never before witnessed particles that exceed the speed of light (or may still have not - but that is another issue) I do not know how the categorical statement about them not losing energy can be made as a proof of experimental error.  If they had said "that because the neutrinos sent from Cern do not appear to lose energy on their journey, they must not have exceeded the speed of light along the way or are behaving in a way that does not fit into any of our current theories" that would have been correct.  However it appears that scientists who have spent years postulating theories have mistaken them for facts.