philosopher and zach
you two are going to be going around in circles until you clarify what area of science you are referring to. I have written about this before.
There is a continuum:
from technology on the one hand which is solidly based on repeatable observable phenomena, which has been highly consistent and highly successful at making accurate predictions.
to the other end of the continuum, deep theory which is based primarily on exceedingly wide extrapolations, and assumptions which usually have no basis except that they are consistent with other already accepted assumptions. There is very little if any evidence or “proof” except for the various present day measurements that are applied to the theory using the assumptions that themselves cannot be proven. Something like that….
So if you are going to argue the qualities of “science”, if you want to get somewhere meaningful, I would suggest you define what area of science you are talking about.