[neonological]

I see it as a flaw because in logic and math, it is very possible to prove your theorems to be true. It is just not possible to do so in reality. Logic is a game with a limited domain. Reality has an unknown domain, hence the inability to prove anything.

Because this feature doesn’t exist in science it is therefore a flaw.

Additionally it doesn’t align with human intuition. Humans assume by default that things can be proven and that facts exist. The truth is that nothing can be proven and facts don’t actually exist. This is counter intuitive and therefore although science is the best tool we have, the counterintuitive qualities science possesses justifies calling these things flaws.

This relatively unknown “flaw” is what drives most of the debate in the political arena. No scientist can ever prove global warming to be true. It is fundamentally impossible. The debate would be over long ago if there was some way for science to prove global warming to be real.