Well, yes and no. The devil is in the details. For example, when Newton formulated his theory of gravity and developed the equations that govern planetary motion, those equations gave answers that appreared to agree quite nicely with reality, give the accuracy of available measuring instruments at the time, so his theory was considered “proven”. As measurement accuracy improved, it was noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn’t quite match prediction. Then along comes Einstein and General Relativity and once again agreement with experiment and reality, and Relativity is thus “proven”. Then cosmologists working on black hole theory encountered strange mathematics when applying the equations of General Relativity to them: infinities popped up everywhere. Infinities are the equations’ way of telling us something is wrong. Enter superstiring and M-Theories. The new equations these new ways of looking at the universe brought to us once again make the mathematics behave, and the infinities disappear. So, is M-Theory “proven”? Maybe. Maybe not.
I think you’re confusing your terminology. The meaning of “theory” as used in science is a bit different than how the word is used by a layperson.
The observable outcome of an activity would be predicted by a hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are not proven. Ever. Science doesn’t work that way. Everything in science is always open to being shown as incorrect. If it were proven, that would mean that it would be impossible to be shown as incorrect, and it would thus not be open for examination.
Some clarification. Theories make general predictions. The predicted outcome itself is the hypothesis.
No, that would be called a prediction. The difference between hypothesis and theory (and law) is the amount of support it enjoys.
Well, if I must admit defeat, at least it’s to a moderator 