Excellent point. Let me summarize the meat of the debate politely then: Mr Lutus's argument is that scientific theories cannot be truths because they must be f

Excellent point. Let me summarize the meat of the debate politely then: Mr Lutus's argument is that scientific theories cannot be truths because they must be falsifiable, which means that they are potentially false and a truth cannot be potentially false. My argument is that "falsifiable" only means that a theory is potentially false with respect to our limited knowledge. A theory can certainly be both true and falsifiable, however, since all that entails is that the theory is true, and yet we don't have all the evidence that would be required to conclude that it is true with the iron-clad power of a logically deductive argument. On the other hand, we might certainly have enough evidence to conclude that the theory is true beyond any reasonable doubt using an empirically inductive argument. Although empirically inductive arguments can never eliminate all doubt, they can eliminate all reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are entitled to conclude, given enough evidence, that a scientific theory is true. Such a theory is still falsifiable, even though we know it to be true (beyond all reasonable doubt), because there is still the logical possibility for the theory to be false, no matter how remote this possibility is. I claim that science strives for (and succeeds in) finding such inductively proven theories.