What can science prove?

[Tiberius]

Of course science (to my knowledge) has never shown (or tried to show) that we really exist (just as no scientist has ever disproven the existence of flying pink gummy bears). However, we can call the fact of our existence an a priori fact, which doesn't require any empirical data beyond reason alone; and thus it may be a presumption underlying any other fact arrived at by conclusive scientific proof or logical argument (assuming the argument structure is sound).

I understand there are weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning (David Hume made excellent points in this regard three centuries ago). Moreover, I also understand it's popular to say science can't prove anything (because they can't prove the underlying fact of our existence). However, our existence is an a priori fact, and it's fallacious to infer it's a fact that requires proof in order to validate the conclusiveness of any other fact. Same type of tap dance theists seem so fond of (and something like theism can only exist in an environement of intellectual confusion). We do exist, and that's a fact, oh yeah .... a "conclusive" fact.

Our existence is logically provable; I have no doubt of that. That wasn't my point though. You can't go from "we exist" to "science has proven certain things do not exist".

The argument for me existing is based on the argument that the act of asking whether I exist or not is a display of thought; thought being an attribute of something that exists; therefore I exist. Please show me how that can be extended to show other things exist...