Since Karl Popper we take science to be the development of falsifiable theories and experimentation to show them to be false (therefore ruled out) or not-false, therefore still theories. We don't say that General Relativity is proven -- we say that it is in agreement with all experiments carried out so far.
One does not 'confirm' the Big Bang theory. One finds evidence that does not disprove it. Or one finds evidence that does disprove it, then someone (possibly the same person or persons) elaborates a variant of that theory, or a whole sale replacement of it.
Note the prominence of the need for falsifiability in the following:
So, yes, speaking of how a Nobel physicist "confirmed" the Big Bang [theory] is unscientific nonsense. What should one expect though? It's a headline in the New York Times, not Nature!
My above comment is at -3, which normally I'd not care about, but collective ignorance of what the scientific method is is a bit depressing.
You're acting like the people posting here don't know that about theories. Language works within contexts, and the context for "confirm" in science reporting tends to be finding strong supporting evidence. Since the discovery of the CMB ruled out a large chunk of the other theories and left the Big Bang as the leading candidate, it obviously fits the finding strong supporting evidence case.
We see similar titles every once in a while when someone does a new kind of test for relativity too.
