To say "For reasons unknown" is to imply that one of your well-established observations is false, which goes back to the problem of contradicting that basic tenet.  Since we can't have contradiction, it's either science goes or the supernatural comes (I posit).

And what will that prove?  That there was a relationship between the plug and my computer (I still don't know if I even have a computer, or even if I did anything at all)?

Even if it did prove a relationship, it still doesn't tell me anything about reality, which is the point here.

How can an observation of a phenomenon itself contradict another observation?  Sure, it can contradict a theory, but that leaves open the potential that a correct (other) explanation exists.  So no matter how many theories you destroy, there is always the possibility that we have simply not thought of the correct theory to explain what has happened, unless you somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist.  

So if apples start falling up instead of down and it can't be reconciled with gravity as we know it, then our understanding of gravity is wrong [edit:  (or we're missing some other factor overpowering gravity)], but that doesn't mean there's NO scientific explanation for things falling up and down.  

Kinda funny how the "can't prove a negative" atheists face is going the other way now.   

@appolose. Stop making up this 'basic scientific tenet' that means a well supported theory can't be proven wrong, it doesn't exist and goes against the very nature of science. Science tries to prove things wrong, a single contradictory observation (as long as we are sure enough that it is a real observation) is enough to sink a scientific theory. For example if we were to create energy without using matter then we would violate the conservation of energy and quite a lot of physics would have to be discarded. It would be discarded.
As such an observation contrary to an established theory changes or destroys the theory, it does not invoke the supernatural.

@Final. The only way I could think of that happening was a violation of logic, which is why I put that condition in my question =P.

It tells you something about reality.  Unplugging your computer from the wall will result in a known event.  The fact that you have not unplugged your computer from your wall shows me that you already know, just as I know, what that end result is.

Your very actions prove your argument false.  Its like talking to a fat dietician who is trying to sell you on his ice cream diet.

My example to Rath is just that:  It is observed (hypothetically) that matter cannot be created physically, then observed that matter comes into existence.  These are contradictory if you don't invoke the supernatural, are they not?  For how could matter become without physical means if the physical is all there is?

For your example; yes, I've acknowledged that to Khuutra.  My example is not such a situation.  Your's entails having a well-established observation become a not-well-established observation.  Mine, on the other hand, shows two well-established observations that are not contradictory unless the sole existence of the phsyical is assumed.

See my response to Finalfan.  My example is not one of science having observing one thing then not observing it, but of a different nature all together.  I will be the first to say that theories can be proven wrong, given that they have counter-observations.  My example is not one of counter-observations.

Also, I do not believe that a single observation to the contrary will defeat a theory; see my response to Khuutra on that.

1.  You assume I have a computer. 

2. You assume my unpluggin it is connected to it being off.

3.  You assume that I can recognize the states of the computer

4.  You assume I haven't unplugged it.

5. You assume ect.

Whether or nor I assume the above list has no bearing on it being an unfounded assumption.  Even if I claimed that I did not assume those things (but really did), my hypocrisy has no bearing on my argument.

How exactly could you "observe" that matter cannot be created?  It's nonsensical.  The most you could say is "I have never seen this happen."  "This cannot happen" is a THEORY derived from never seeing it happen.  Which would then be shown to be incorrect.  

Your hypothetical observation is impossible.   

I really hope this does not turn into another de-baptised-length debate :/