“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.
“A philosophy of science can be logically debated, but it cannot be proven using the scientific method or by scientific experimentation.”
That is where we disagree.
We may have limited tools to prove some form of idealism at this point—but that does not mean we will never have those tools.
If idealism is correct (and I lean towards thinking it is) we just need to get very clever in designing proper experiments to establish it.
One highly debated example is the “hundred monkey” issue.
That argues that if monkeys in one location learn something other monkeys in faraway places will learn it as well.
I have no clue whether it is valid or not—but presumably a series of rigorous controlled experiments could resolve the issue one way or the other.