I've come to believe that there are no true proofs in science, only theories and evidence to support them. A proof is something that can never be disputed such as in maths, and in our world, there is always going to be an imperfection to our theories in some regard. What I want to know is how this idea I have of proofs in science can be polished. Am I wrong in any respect? Why I'm asking this of you is because I am having this debate with a sceptic about the ozone hole (now I know the true meaning of a sceptic by experiencing it first hand - one of my favourite quotes by her is "the science doesn't matter") and I've had enough of her telling me she has "disproven" this and that by giving just one logical idea that counters the evidence shown. Anyway, I told her how things cannot be proven in science but she fought back by saying that things like electricity can be proven to exist. I don't know how to counter this because I can't quite see a connection between proving a theory and seeing the obvious (that electricity is there). Any ideas?