[donh]

Well, no, but I think it's worthwhile to first stop for a moment and consider what we mean by "useful" in this context. Scientific principles are useful to us because they illustrate or illuminate some aspect of actual reality. Whatever else it may be, science is not a solipsistic exercise, and is predicated on the assumption that objective reality exists beyond ourselves. Given that, for our principles to be truly useful in a scientific sense, they must then bear some relationship to objective reality, and hence be in some sense, truthful, albeit as an imperfect approximation of truth, rather than being provably and indisputably true. The inverse-square law of gravitation is not deductively and provably true, but it is useful to us precisely because it appears to bear some relationship to the actual, objective behavior of physical objects.

You too, eh? "Useful" is an adequate distinction to operate on. TRUTH, like "Proof", is in the eye of the beholder. Please consider what you have just said here about the inverse-square law: it is useful to us because "it appears to bear some relationship to the behavior of objects". That's all you need to know--that the inverse-square law can be useful in landing spaceships and predicting eclipses and piecing together what it must look like in distant regions of space. TRUTH need not enter the picture, unless your religeous, or religeous-like convictions incline you that way. Utility is a pretty obvious telescope whose view looks pretty similar for every sane observer--TRUTH is a fractured kalaidascope every viewer can put together in his own peculiar way, and arrogate to his own peculiar agenda.

[general_re]

Please consider what you have just said here about the inverse-square law: it is useful to us because "it appears to bear some relationship to the behavior of objects". That's all you need to know--that the inverse-square law can be useful in landing spaceships and predicting eclipses and piecing together what it must look like in distant regions of space.

If you're content to stop there, fine by me. Personally, I like to consider the issue of WHY it's useful to us, which is because it is an accurate and faithful representation of reality.

TRUTH is a fractured kalaidascope every viewer can put together in his own peculiar way, and arrogate to his own peculiar agenda.

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do. Compare "an accurate and faithful representation of reality" to:

truth    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.

Some truths are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, particularly if you're talking about mysticism and so forth. But the sorts of things that science concerns itself with are not.

I see, you think what lawyers say about this word should carry the day.

I think what people say about the word should carry the day. You may try to "reserve the word 'proved'...to tangible deductive proofs" until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that the majority of users of the language do not make such a reservation. "Proof" is a matter of degree, and in most cases, a subjective judgement. That usage may offend you, but the point of language is to communicate with others, not to enforce your particular standard of right-thinking. If you wish to explain to people that the colloquial use of "proof" and "prove" does not have any relationship to what scientists do, be my guest, but I rather doubt that the colloquial meaning of "proof" and "prove" will change as a result.

I'll repeat the question my other deponent here did not effectively answer: it is a truism of scientific rhetoric that scientific theories are subject to question. Now you've claimed that the best scientific theories are "proved". So what "proved" means, is "subject to question"? I guess a word means whatever you want it to mean.

prove    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prv)
v. proved, proved, or prov·en (prvn) prov·ing, proves
v. tr.

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Just because something slipshod is a relatively common practice, doesn't make it an acceptable thing.

I have expressed no opinion about whether it is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable. I merely point out that this usage exists, and is common enough to be what people "usually mean" by "proof", contrary to what you said before.