No, I have simply taken the position that your definition of proof is to rigorous for practical science, and is that of the abstract.
It is not intensely abstract to expect that words should not have diametrically opposite meanings at the same time, even if some people with degrees in natural science misuse them thusly. Does "proved" means something that is subject to question? Or not? Or are you simply going to continue to insist that "proved" means both things at the same time?