>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Just one thing to note with science. You cannot in actuality

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Just one thing to note with science. You cannot in actuality prove anything with science. It's a fundamental and logical consequence of the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven. Science can only disprove things. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Einstein This occurs because of the following reason: If I make a hypothesis and I make 10,000 observations that are inline with my hypothesis I still haven't proven my hypothesis correct... because at any point in time in the future, I can make an observation that contradicts all my previous observations. Thus no amount of observation can prove something, but one contradictory observation can disprove something. I get where you're coming from but this property of science is literally what makes all these arguments of "spirituality" more attractive because science is indeed fundamentally crippled with reliability issues. That is a fundamental statement about reality in itself. We don't definitively know if anything is true. We only know certain statements are false. Anything we think is true is literally in your words: "a bias" Proof is the domain of math and other logical games we make up to play. Proof doesn't actually exist in reality.