Actually in science it is rare to prove much true, you usually prove things false. Mathematics I'll agree works this way. But other sciences usually a theory or model is put up, if it explains the evidence it is kept, if it is shown to have flaws a better model is searched for.
Hi HeiGou,
While many working scientists do in fact use the word "prove" and "proof", most contemporary philosophers of science avoid this language. We prefer to use the terms "confirm" and "disconfirm", where "confirm" means to gather or obtain evidence which raises the probability of a hypothesis (never absolute certainty), and "disconfirm" means to gather evidence that lowers its probability (without rendering it impossible). The concept of "proof" is essentially mathematical, relating to deductive logic, and dates back to Aristotle, when the paradigm of justified belief was a valid deductive argument, or a mathematical "proof", in which the truth of the conclusion followed by necessity from the truth of the premises and axioms. Science essentially uses inductive, not deductive, logic – the truth of a scientific claim is never "proved" or disproved with deductive certainty but only with a degree of probability in relation to the strength of the premises, observation, or evidence. So, science cannot "prove" with anything like deductive or mathematical certainty that the earth is not a flat disk. After all photos can be faked, minds can be tampered with and influenced. No matter what evidence that a scientist puts forth to claim that the earth is not flat, there is a member of
the flat earth society that would find a compatible hypothesis to explain away the contrary evidence. And the flat-earthers are right! Science can't "prove" the earth is flat, but it's a mistake to play the "proof" game to begin with. What science can do is to systematically bring overwhelming evidence to bear on the claim that the earth is flat, and render the claim highly improbable with no good reason to believe or bet on its truth.
So I would put the point more strongly: science doesn't "prove", in any deductive sense, either positive or negative claims. The most any single experiment can do is disconfirm a hypothesis and make it's truth more unlikely, not in anyway establish falsehood with certainty. If I drop a cannonball tomorrow from the Tower of Pisa, having carefully weighed it beforehand and having established the cannonball is real, and the cannonball floats up, I have not absolutely falsified the existence of gravity or some law of physics. And we would never accept any such single demonstration to have established that: I can always be the victim of some elaborate hoax for example.
And while I agree that science is constantly dealing with theories and explanatory models - a newer one often replacing the former based on new evidence - we must not forgot the connection between choosing one model over another, based on strong confirmatory evidence, and probable truth. The better confirmed one theory is over another, the more probably true that theory is, and is therefore a better bet for managing and spending time, money, and resources. Without probable truth in the picture, there is no cogent explanation as to why science is useful, or why one explanation is better or more useful than another.
Peace,
Sharvy
