The problem is that nothing has really been “proved” in this area.
It is full of theories, speculation and assumptions.
It may be correct but the science behind it is very iffy.
It is totally possible that the C they did not include in the experiment was the actual cause of B.
“The problem is that nothing has really been ‘proved’ in this area... It is full of theories, speculation and assumptions.”
Science doesn’t prove theories. It supports them. It proves things such as observational data and mathematical theorems that are frequently the basis for scientific theories.
Scientific theories are useful because they form the basis of useful predictions and are often applied in inventing and utilizing new technologies.
I think the issues you are bringing up are more about the philosophy of science than science itself. Einstein spent a considerable amount of time explaining his philosophical presuppositions alongside his scientific theories. He considered contemplating them to be essential to scientific innovation. We don’t hear so much of this from modern science.
The problematic assumptions of scientific theories are in the realm of philosophy. For example, Conscious Agent Theory, as proposed by Donald Hoffman, presupposes idealism rather than naturalism.
Naturalism is a philosophical viewpoint asserting that everything arises from natural processes, rejecting the supernatural. In philosophy of mind, it means that all mental phenomena are explained within the framework of natural science. Idealism, on the other hand, proposes that reality is fundamentally mental or consciousness-based.
Hoffman specifically describes his philosophy of science as “Conscious Realism” which is a subcategory of Idealism.
A philosophy of science can be logically debated, but it cannot be proven using the scientific method or by scientific experimentation. Science has its limits.