Science And Proof

By Leo Gura - September 12, 2026

Science wants to have it both ways. On the one hand science wants to claim that science, strictly-speaking, never proves anything. However, this is BS because every scientist treats scientific truths as proven and absolute. When debating the shape of the Earth, no scientist will accept the argument that the Earth might be flat because science never proves anything. In practice everyone treats scientific truths as proven, regardless of the technicalities of what proof is or isn’t. See, you can’t survive on the strict idealized scientific notion of proof, because in practice nothing of importance ever clears that bar. Have you logically proven that your spouse cheated on you? No. But you will react emotionally nonetheless. So there exists this profound disconnect in science between proof and sense-making. If you as a scientist want to take the position that science never proves anything, then why do you believe science so strongly? Notice that in practice you treat science as if it proves things. You treat science as having proven that the Earth is round. But that’s an interesting epistemic question, Has science proven that the Earth is round? What does it take to prove that the Earth is round? This is much more tricky than scientists want to admit. Scientists do not want a relativistic notion of proof because they want science to be objective, but proof is relativistic. No two people will agree on what counts a proof, which is why Flat Earthers exist.

The reason I say all this is because when arguing with a serious scientist, eventually they will pull this cheap trick on you: “But science doesn’t really prove anything.” That’s what they love to say when you back them into a corner. But if science doesn’t prove anything, then nothing in science is truly known. But the scientist cannot admit that. The scientist needs to have it both ways: the scientist wants science to be the highest source of sense-making, but also must technically deny that science really knows anything for sure. This is the chicanery of science.

“But Leo! Nothing can be known for sure!”

You don’t know that.

See, if science doesn’t prove anything, then science has not proven that science is true. Yet every scientist holds science as true. If science doesn’t prove anything, then everyone is placing way too much authority in science. That is indeed the case, but scientists are in denial about it because they don’t want to relinquish that authority.

What is the truth? The truth is that science is much more shaky than scientists like to admit to themselves. Science is a bunch of ideas held together with duct tape and bubblegum. But scientists do not portray it that way because that looks too embarrassing and invites doubt. But that doubt is not a bug, it’s a feature. You should doubt science because it was never proven to be true. But here’s the kicker: the reason it was never proven to be true is because it isn’t.

Click Here to see ALL of Leo's juicy insights.