> But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'. True that. But isn't that a

> But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'. True that. But isn't that an important part of the scientific method (at least in the karl-popper-scientific-method sense), and part of the point of science, really? Strictly speaking, you can't prove anything using the scientific method; only 'falsify' it (hence Popper's 'falsificationism', 'science as falsification', etc.) To 'kinda-sorta-prove' something in science, you formulate a null hypothesis, and then attempt to falsify it. But strictly speaking, one is not able to 'prove' anything (only provide weak/strong evidence for/against something.)