It seems that every claim or argument can be proved or disproved by scientific experts.
I don't agree MrGordon.
Most negatives are likely to be extremely difficult to disprove.
In any case the burden of proof lies with the people making claims.
For example, I can't say I have proof that fairies exist because you can't prove that they don't. The burden of proof lies with the claimer.
I don't know what point you are making by saying that Scientific truth is determined by the social climate.
The only contribution that I feel that I can make is the religious truth and scientific truth are not the same thing. My understanding is the religious claim that thier knowledge is unchanging and beyond challenge. Science makes no such claims but rather that its theories are no better than "work in progress" that are continually challenged.
A million dollar question is: would religious people be prepared to admit that they and their sources (bible, koran) etc could be wrong? The point that I'm trying to highlight is that religion and science are really not on the same page in terms of approach.
