Science (ideally) try to prove stuff, because it’s often logically impossible to do so. Science (ideally) disproves stuff. The anthropogenic model was proposed decades ago, made some predictions, and is currently fitting the empirical evidence with a worry degree of accuracy. As theories go, it’s pretty solid, which means any competing hypothesis must be even more solid to displace it. Philosophically, I’m a fan of Popper and Polanyi, although I realise some scientists aren’t.
[quote]Of course it can be wrong. Scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth at one time, and it worked for them, but it was false, and it certainly wasn’t science, even though it was the best “science” they were capable of at the time of their sophistication. And even when Galilee and Kepler showed a better way, they didn’t want to believe it; they had their science.
Fair point. A theory can indeed be proven wrong, in the sense that it doesn’t work. But your example rather proves my point. Motion can only be described in relation to other things, so you can actually model the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth, and sort-of make it work. It’s not exactly wrong. It’s just horribly complicated and inelegant.
I was trying to point out that “The Truth”, in science, is often incomprehensible in human terms. What does an electron look like? The question has no meaning. We can’t grok electrons the way we can a hammer or a waterfall. We can only model things and ask, is this model useful? Can we use it to describe how the world works?