Higgs’ particle is nothing but a case of Russell’s teapot

Higgs’ particle (as well as the idea of “a true tree of life”) is a case of Russell’s teapot, because it is not testable.

This fact may not be immediately obvious for all of us, especially not for those particle physicists that embrace the belief, but considering the fact that we can’t prove neither a negative (ie, absence of such a particle) nor a positive (ie, presence of such a particle), reveals this fact. (Proving the positive does actually equal assuming it as an axiom).

The problem in a nut-shell is how much probability it takes to prove existence, when a thing that exists has the probability of 1 to exist, whereas a thing that not exists has the probability of 0 to exist.

The reason for the problem is that proving the existence of “Higgs’ particle” is not a case of proving the existence of A particle, but proving the existence of A KIND OF (ie, a class) of particles, which can only be accomplished at the expense of disproving objects, which would pull the rug out from under the explanation’s feet - if indeed Higgs’ particles are real, then the phenomena they explain aren’t real, but instead the Higg’s particles take the place of what they aimed to explain, leaving us with only a Russell’s teapot.

I understand why class-realists need a Higgs’ particle to embrace science, but I argue that this embracement is devastating for science. I argue that science is not a belief, but a way to handle the reality we perceive rationally, and believing in Higgs’ particle is not rational. Instead, Higgs’ particle-ism pulls the rug out from under science’s feet. We simply have to make up our minds about whether we consider science to be a belief or a way (ie, a method) to discuss the reality that all of us perceive. It can’t be both at the same time.