I've posted this on another board, but I think this is a better place for this argument. Science is irrational. The "scientific method" alone affirms the consequent, which is illogical and irrational.
I've no problem if someone makes a claim from "science" and argues that such a claim is one of many possibilities. That's not what "scientists" do, though.
Science is irrational.
For something to be accepted as mainstream science it has to do more than affirm the consequent.
I used the example of relativity in your other thread, and it works well here. The orbit of Mercury was known to be anomalous, relativity predicted an anomalous orbit, so it must be right. That would be affirm the consequent.
In fact relativity did not merely predict the orbit would be anomalous, it also predicted what that orbit would be. In doing so, it makes it far more likely the relativity is right - or rather a good model. The chances of a wrong theory predicting an anomalous orbit is pretty high. The probability of a wrong theory predicting the correct anomalous orbit is very low. Therefore there is a fair chance the theory is right.
Even then, it was only when other predictions were confirmed that relativity became mainstream. All these are
bold predictions, predictions that are significantly different to what we would otherwise expect. When a number of bold predictions are confirmed we have good reason to suppose the theory is accurate.