We can't 
This is why I argue that empirical proofs are not "proofs", but are closer to probabilistic arguments for something. The current level of evidence leans heavily towards explanation X, but one piece of contradictory evidence could mean that explanation Y is correct instead.
Of course, what's more interesting is if our "logic" is actually logical. I mean, there is the argument that logic depends on three laws that are all absolutely true, otherwise everything ends up contradicting itself, but on the other hand, the arguments supporting those laws are all made using the laws in the first place.
Might be an interesting problem to discuss.
This is why I argue that empirical proofs are not "proofs", but are closer to probabilistic arguments for something. The current level of evidence leans heavily towards explanation X, but one piece of contradictory evidence could mean that explanation Y is correct instead.
Of course, what's more interesting is if our "logic" is actually logical. I mean, there is the argument that logic depends on three laws that are all absolutely true, otherwise everything ends up contradicting itself, but on the other hand, the arguments supporting those laws are all made using the laws in the first place.
Might be an interesting problem to discuss.
