There is a philosophical point of view from which it is true to say that "science never proves anything". But if we adopt this point of view then it would be equally true to say that I can't "prove" that I have two legs, not even by looking at them and counting them. As such, it redefines the word "prove" to the point where it loses its meaning in English as it is usually spoken.
If you fall into the philosophical trap of course you could say that you don't have two legs, but science as I understand it, depends on both the facts of observation and the science of why. Otherwise we wouldn't get much of anywhere would we?
™ Version 4.2
