> the theoretical results and incomplete evidence are persuasive enough In the quoted example, "direct evidence" from that paper was not necessary to confirm t

> the theoretical results and incomplete evidence are persuasive enough In the quoted example, "direct evidence" from that paper was not necessary to confirm that the other calculations and models match. The achievement presented in that paper was to measure the specific neutrino flux, but there were many other measurements before that matched the developed models and weren't less convincing. It's always good to read more than only journalist's interpretation. Here's from the paper itself: Eve before "solar neutrinos from secondary processes have been observed, proving the nuclear origin of the Sun’s energy and contributing to the discovery of neutrino oscillations." Only "those from proton–proton fusion have hitherto eluded direct detection." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13702 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13702 The paper itself stated that the reactions in the Sun were already proved.