The scientific process only involves falsifiable theories. The process does allow refining theories to fit new evidence, for sure, but a refined theory is a new theory, with the old one disproven, but this only works when theories are falsifiable. Therefore we never speak of "proven" or "confirmed" theories.
> The scientific process only involves falsifiable theories
This is definitely not true. One obvious example is that important scientific work is done turning unfalsifiable theories into falsifiable ones. After gravitational waves were predicted by general relativity there was some argument about whether they were a real observable thing or just an artifact of the maths. Those guys were undoubtedly doing "real science" while discussing something that some of them thought was undetectable (and therefore unfalsifiable).
Another example is that a lot of science is exploratory without any particular theory you're trying to falsify.
Science is more interesting and broad than your dogma about what it should be.
TL;DR: If a theory isn’t falsifiable—if it doesn’t make any predictions which can be proved or disproved—then it’s more philosophy than science. By this standard, for example, string theory fails.
