Well generally it has come to my attention that a lot of people answer to some questions with the comment: "well, that's like saying that if the laws of physics are like X" -X the false statement- "then Y is true" -Y false conclusion. Well that's not really enlightening I think. The main point is to see if the X indeed leads to Y, and then by understanding that Y is a false result you can exclude X. Otherwise it's like you claim you know concretely the laws of physics... or that you learned them without questioning/understanding them -which I find a religious method rather than scientific. Questioning something, doubting it, is what's leading you to understand it (if it's correct). The most common example of what I'm saying is SR, even at introductory level. It's a theory full of "paradoxes" that intend on ruling it out... but through the understanding of the theory itself, you can solve the paradoxes. What are your views?