We say that something that is 99.9999999% probably true is true not because it is known to be true but because it's practical

Exactly.

True science does not have an endpoint. It keeps evolving according to new information. A true scientist would never dare to say that something is 100% guaranteed.

Because that would require godlike knowledge.

Science is about prediction, not proof. Currently accepted scientific models are only the best possible approximations of reality, inferred through evidence from experiments.

Science is not about proof, but if proof is **literally impossible** then it's not scientific.

I'd say if falsifiability is impossible then it is not scientific

That's the same thing.

How so? Proof exists in closed logical systems, not in science.

...

Who told you proof is not a thing in science?

Also Phad, every instance of 'it's' in your first section is the wrong one

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-is-the-most-counterintuitive-yet-relevant-result-in-physics/answer/Jack-Fraser-11

Here's a PHD's clarification on this

"To prove" something is to arrive at a logical conclusion from initial axioms

Proof is not about 100% certainty

So you can prove, within a theoretical model, that something is true. But you don't know if that theoretical model is accurate representation of reality.

Proof is information that is so definitively and obviously correct that it'd be ludicrous to contest it. Like 1+1=2

"As a sentience becomes "more" evolved it's birthrates shrink"
should be
"As a sentience becomes "more" evolved **its** birthrates shrink"
@phadreus

I'm using "Proof" as it is used in logic, not colloquial meaning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof

If you can't prove something, then you can't falsify it either

This is philosophy 101
That's why we make a clear distinction between philosophy and math for example

That's why so many philosophers are bullshitters, because they can just claim literally anything and call themselves smart

Gravity is real, it's been proven. You don't require 100% certainty that it works to consider it proven. 100% certainty **does not exist for anything**

The only thing we need to know is that gravity, so far, has always worked pretty much exactly as we would predict.

Only a philosophizing bullshitter would deny that and come up with some metaphysical nonsense to contest it.

Maybe one day gravity will fail to work as we predict, and it'll be spectacular and exciting. Until that day **it counts as proven.**

I agree with all that, the difference is just semantics. Difference between a Mathematical proof and theoretical models in physics is that once proven, Mathematical results won't ever fail.

Every single model we create to describe reality can fail, that's the whole point of science

Nothing is ever 100%, so saying "proof is not 100%" is like saying the sun rises every day

Mathematical results can, hypothetically, fail. Because anything and everything can fail.

I just wouldn't bet on it, that's all.

Again, we're using two different definitions of proof. How can Mathematical results fail though?

Because literally every model we created to describe the world has been created by us. By fallible beings.

There is no way that we can 100% sure about anything.

Pure Mathematics as an independent subject isn't used to describe the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

All mathematical systems do have minor blindspots to them

We can only understand mathematics through our subjective mind. As long as that is the case, we can misunderstand all or any of mathematics.

That is philosophy 101. Nothing is truly knowable.