I've written off Vega already as a troll, so I'm not addressing him here but you're both wrong. Science isn't a relabel of 'ideas' or 'evidence'.
Science is an epistemological algorithm built on the foundation of rationality. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Reason doesn't preclude proof and therefore neither does science. Reason operates on premises and evidence is a type of premise which allows logic to operate on phenomenal concepts instead of pure abstractions.
Phenomenal in this case means relating to reality as presented to our senses. Numbers in mathematics is an example of a non-phenomenal concept even though it has plenty of uses in modeling phenomenal concepts.
Science is by definition about phenomenal concepts which is why a chain of reasoning that has no evidence (sensory basis relating to common reality) is not scientific even though it can be absolutely true (mathematical proofs, metaphysical axioms).
When Vega says science offers evidence that is putting the cart before the horse. Science eats evidence and poops theories with predictive power. Without science there is still plenty of evidence, just no reasonable understanding of the phenomena.
Without science there is still plenty of logic that can be done, but it doesn't relate to evidence (and thus specific reality).
Science is the strategy for combining evidence with reason to produce theories. Some of those theories are proven in the sense that the evidence which would need to be denied to allow for falsehood is so universal and repeatable that the only other alternative is the matrix. Anyone who calls that "not really proven" need not be taken seriously.
