But then again, *science is just a school of philosophy* so I suppose you coukd just call psychology a school of philosophy as well and give it new rules.

The **inability** to prove or disprove a theory is a **lack of falsifiability**

The supernatural world cannot be explained using natural means. Hence the supernatural cannot be scientific.

You can say that theories don't need to *actually* have *existing* proof to be scientifically valid theories, but they still need to be *falsifiable* (i.e. it must be *possible* to prove or disprove them) to be scientifically valid.

I'm honestly at a loss for how to explain this to you and decided to just do a search and see what comes up. Anyways... This was the first result and pretty accurately explains your misunderstanding(ironically from psychology today)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Quote the part about falsifiability, I'm not gonna read the whole thing

I need to do other shit now and don't really care about this conversation. I really don't have the time to explain basic concepts to people.

You're literally just trying to wear people down with bullshit you didn't even fact check then

"In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives."

god that was SO FUCKING HARD I'm going to die of brain overload

Basic concepts like falsifiability, you mean?

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem **(unless a flaw is discovered in the proof)."**

This is literally just "science is probabilistic" Phad

That's from the link you posted. So proof, according to him, is not neccessarily final at all. It's a little trick that the author is playing.

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.