[Heartlander]

Look, does science attempt to ‘prove’ anything? If you do not believe so – well, that’s an interesting theory…

Beyond that, (natural science) what is your ‘theory’ in regards to why a tree is not a rock.

Natural science has little to no use for proofs--examine it as exhaustively as you like.

[donh]

Look, does science attempt to ‘prove’ anything? If you do not believe so – well, that’s an interesting theory…

I eagerly await the example you intend to post of a formal proof from a natural science journal.

Beyond that, (natural science) what is your ‘theory’ in regards to why a tree is not a rock.

My theory is that when you fail a straightforward test of the thesis you seem to want to defend, that you will try to recover using purile strawman arguments.

Obviously, the inability to produce proofs does not suggest--as you are implying--the inability to make observations, draw distinctions, and assess likelihoods--which is what science does: something you could easily ascertain by direct observation.

[WOSG]

"Look, does science attempt to ‘prove’ anything? If you do not believe so – well, that’s an interesting theory…"

Empricial science likes to "model" things and 'prove' that the model holds in general cases. A theory can be shown "wrong" when it doesnt hold up, but it can not really be proved with certainty as 'correct'. It's only a model.

Look at gravitation. newton's theory held as "true" until Einstein showed it was not fully general. measurements based on einstein's theory showed newton was incomplete, so Einstein was "right". But that doesnt make Relativity the last word.