Science doesn't do proof?
Right. All it can do is make inferences from evidence.
...Al promise me you will never attempt anything electrical.
Notice that physics infers (from evidence) that a specific amount of insulation well prevent wires from shorting out. Not proof. Just evidence.
This is what grieves us because true science is all about provable facts that work time and time again given the same conditions.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
That is what I said in my first post evolution is a theory and not scientific fact...but it is presented as a fact, that's what bugs us. So we agree, I am right and you are wrong.
In science, a theory is stronger than a fact. Scientific laws are facts. Theories, like laws, predict specific things. But laws can't explain why these things are so, while theories do explain them.
Hence, Kepler's laws predicted the motion of planets around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation explained why, and thereby opened the issue to stars, comets, and even an apple falling from a tree.