I strongly disagree. In science, an every-increasing number of ideas are, for all intents and purposes, totally accepted and taken for granted, and any argument they might be wrong is simply dismissed out of hand. For instance, take the idea that the Earth is round, or that matter is composed of atoms.
Now it is true that scientists sometimes say something similar to your claim, but if you look at how they actually think in the practice of science, it is something quite different.
People get this wrong because, like many words, "prove" has more than one meaning, and they mistakenly apply one that is appropriate to mathematics or pure logical to an empirical area where a more pragmatic meaning actually applies.
Matter isn't composed of atoms, that is uncut table, indivisible basic elements. Ironically, light is made of quanta, but light isn't matter. Or, actually it is?
Neither is the earth spherical, if that's what you mean by round. It is oblate.
There has been quite a bit of argumentation along these lines in the sciences. And yes, the arguments were dismissed out of hand until evidence was forthcoming.
That's why newton's ideas about electrical vibrations in nerve cells were dismissed out of hand. After all, scientists knew with great certainty that nerves were "too flaccid" to support vibration!
Oh come on. For atoms and the shape of the earth, you know perfectly well I was referring to the contemporary ideas.
And as far as argumentation goes, there was a lot, but then it got settled. Ditto for nerve cells. In each of these cases, the argumentation was because there wasn't enough empirical data to decide the matter. But then more empirical evidence got collected and the truth became clear.
The fact is, while scientists sometimes talk about nothing being really proven, in practice they believe an enormous and ever-expanding number of ideas actually are.
Now it is true that scientists sometimes say something similar to your claim, but if you look at how they actually think in the practice of science, it is something quite different.
People get this wrong because, like many words, "prove" has more than one meaning, and they mistakenly apply one that is appropriate to mathematics or pure logical to an empirical area where a more pragmatic meaning actually applies.