"You have used this kind of argument many times" ++ It is no argument, it is an observation: 'provability is a higher degree of truth' - Scientific American
tygxc wrote this many times. It is an unreferenced (where exactly did he read that? He does not remember, so nobody can falsify him), out of the context, ambiguous ("higher degree"?) and irrelevant statement, because if it says that something can be true without having been proven (which is just obvious), it does not state that tygxc knows what is true without proofs.
[ . . . ]
The usual deceptions...
'you know that they refrain to call QM or GR other than "theories",'
++ No, not at all. A century ago people spoke of 'Quantum Theory' and 'Relativity Theory'. Nowadays [ . . . ] those are no longer 'theories'.
Emphases in green are mine:
"General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity and Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics." [1]
"Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles." [2]
Now of course he will say that I simply read these things on Wikipedia and that he knows much better, but it is not true. Beware the pseudoscientists!
@Optimissed,
Your vision of science is (no offense) old school, positivistic. I follow Popper's approach: nothing can be really sure if you don't have all the necessary informations and since we do not know everything about our universe, we do not know whether what we don't know is not necessary to full understand what we already "know". @Elroch mentioned Jaynes, too. I think that most scientists today are not positivits, even if they do not talk much about that; nevertheless you know that they refrain to call QM or GR other than "theories", even if these have been well supported by experiments for more than a century. So, no, we don't even know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow: in the future, we could find evidence that a star can explode for inexplicable (to current knowledge) reasons, even if such an event would be extremely rare, of course, otherwise we would have already observed many times stars like the sun explode for no apparent reason.
As for chess, it is justified to hypothesize that the game may be other than a draw, because just one forcing winning line would render all the drawing lines irrelevant to the topic. That's why many can say "chess is a draw", or better "chess is likely a draw", but no one dares to write a paper stating that chess is ultra-weakly solved.
You are completely mistaken. You seem to misunderstand completely the idea of positivism (I'm nowhere near being a positivist ... just the opposite in fact) and also the tension which exists between science, which is always evidence led even though it seeks to establish a body of theory, with hypothesis.
The best thing for you is to read my repost, #3782 and to base your comments on that. Although it's allegorical, it outlines the basic conflicts which have confused you. Unless you approach it in that way, from the ground up, it will not be possible to see where you base your judgements.
The reason I sometimes criticised you, from the beginning of your posting here, is that I could tell there are basic conflicts within your model of science. Less astute people, like Elroch, as an example, although intelligent, are less likely to pick up on them.