No theory can ever be proven. All that one can do is submit it to scrutiny and see if it breaks down. If it doesn't, it's worth hanging onto. If it does, that you should adjust it or replace it with something better.
Consider The Atomic Theory of Matter. I don't think that it's wrong, but I DO think that it is incomplete, an approximation. This isn't a heretical thing to suggest, by the way, since all models are by their very nature approximations.
But it is an approximation that has done very well. Atomic theory originated in ancient Greece/India. It forms the backbone of our physical sciences. It has without doubt led humans to manipulate the external world in all sorts of useful ways via Physics and Chemistry, but it hasn't really helped with respect to understanding our nature at a deeper level. It hasn't done much to explain the core of our existence as we experience it. Atomic theory suggests nothing about the meaning of life.
So I'd like to develop what I'll refer to as the Sliver Hypothesis. It will sit alongside the Atomic Model - to complement it, not replace it. It has the potential to have a far-reaching influence. Not on Science, necessarily, but on society in a metaphysical sense. I invite the reader to try it on for size. To test if it fits.
Thereafter, I'll consider my model's implications; it is bound to have many.
Finally, I’ll endeavour to meld those implications into a coherent, consistent, and all-encompassing world view.
My ultimate aim is to understand the world from my own point of view. I write to refine my ideas (and hang onto them lest one day my thinking grows dim).