> hypothesis proven I broadly agree with you but just want to flag up that there is subtlety here that's important. The scientific method is really more focus

> hypothesis proven I broadly agree with you but just want to flag up that there is subtlety here that's important. The scientific method is really more focused on disproving hypotheses than proving them. The goal isn't to prove your model describes exactly what is happening. You actually assume it doesn't, but is good enough as far as you know for practical purposes, for now. Trying to refute aspects the model sort of provides evidence that it isn't obviously incorrect, so in a sense you are supporting the hypothesis by not disproving it, but the goal really is ultimitely to refute it and then refine the model accordingly so it becomes better over time. You're never 'done' - the model/hypothesis is never 'proven'. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.