Isn't a thought experiment as subjective as you could make science be? Is it that since it is impossible with our current methods, we are simply skipping too many hurdles that would have to first be passed in order to satisfy minimal scientific method steps?
I understand that in order to prompt further investigation you would need to first have a model and that such model would first have to be proven, but there seems to be a bit of the: "Nobody can prove this or that thought experiment wrong" or "Nobody can argue anything against that thought experiment" that seems to validate a theory more than objective experimentation after a clinical hypothesis that delivers a more scientific approach to our methodologies. In other words, how is it that a thought experiment is even called an experiment, because in reality it should be classified more as a form of belief or a primordial idea that could drive further research.
I would just like to know if anyone cares to explain.