Acceptance of an objective rule is compulsory. Until we find a test that makes it fail; then the new rule becomes fact.
If there is an unknowable probability of a statement being false and a mountain of empirical data saying it is true, the scale seems to be clearly tipping toward the direction of the data. Choosing to focus on the unknowable but ever-present chance that something is wrong is not going to be very fruitful.
So if someone says something is 'proven,' there is a tacit understanding that they really mean "the data gathered thus far indicates this is so." You could say it is relatively absolutely true.
Wiseman:
Acceptance of an objective rule is compulsory. Until we find a test that makes it fail; then the new rule becomes fact.
If there is an unknowable probability of a statement being false and a mountain of empirical data saying it is true, the scale seems to be clearly tipping toward the direction of the data. Choosing to focus on the unknowable but ever-present chance that something is wrong is not going to be very fruitful.
So if someone says something is 'proven,' there is a tacit understanding that they really mean "the data gathered thus far indicates this is so." You could say it is relatively absolutely true.