If that were true we'd be paralyzed by solipsism and skepticism. Sometimes you have to make do with a working hypothesis.
You can't eat mathematical proofs.
You can't eat mathematical proofs.
Here's a very simple example:
- How much testing is sufficient? For example, as far as we can tell the laws of physics don't vary over time scales that we can directly observe. This has been true as far as we can tell.
- So far so good: the hypothesis that 'the laws of physics don't change' has been 'tested'. Next question: is that amount of testing sufficient?
- Well, that seems to be an untestable proposition; it's always philosophically possible that things get pulled out from under your feet, and no amount of testing up to time T lets you know with complete certainty what happens for t > T.
Go even one or two steps deeper, and you quickly find yourself resting on either unfounded, untested, or untestable assumptions.
"The real sciense[sic] should contain ONLY the things which are proved with real proofs!"
As in mathematical proofs. You can't prove most things the way you can in mathematics, which is rock-solid through tautologies and self-consistent abstract models. When you are observing actual reality you have to make some assumptions.
It's not an ideal solution but it's a practical inevitability to make some assumptions to get things moving. The best of us come back and check the assumptions as soon as they are able to quantify them and perform an empirical experiment, and as a backup we have others independently verifying people's assumptions by trying to replicate experiments and seeing if the predictions line up.
Nobody has magic powers to divine truth from nothing. Science is a filter which gradually strains out the misinterpreted and the biased and the just-plain-wrong, but it still starts with subjective observation and reasoning. As does all human experience. The important part is that it moves away from that instead of stopping there.