The "official" scientific view (if their ever was one) would be at least agnostic, as nothing can be false for sure until it is disproven, and nothing can be described with 100% certainty as a law -- only theorized to likely hold true.
Exactly that.
As a relativist I totally agree, but when it comes to knowledge, that's actually totally irrelevant. One part of gaining knowledge, is designing theories and looking for clues that make them look valid. In extension to that, it's really too easy to disregard any scientific speculation when it's actually based on what we
do know. It's the next best thing to objective truth, when in a sense such a thing doesn't exist. (Please don't tell me I have to explain to you how we indeed 'assume' we can see with our eyes what our brain tells us and very basic stuff like that; as reality really is that relative in it's most abstract sense. Science is where mankind shows it's true creativity, but its methodology makes sure it stays within a certain realm of logic.)
Within the frame of our existence (mankind's existence), it would be stupid to dismiss anything or everything, just because in a philosophical sense we can't prove it for a 100%.
That 'label' in itself is actually an extremely relative thing anyway, as we can not even determine when we've reached that 100%. 100% is everything of everything, but if we can't determine the unknown, how can we know that we didn't already uncovered the entire 100%?? It is obviously a description/definition that simply screams relativism.
All in all, it's really an argument that in practice we can't do to much with. In fact, look around you and see how perhaps not even 0.000000000....0001% of knowledge about our universe got us where we are now. From what we've accomplished already, I don't think theories or a lack of knowledge at some point in time were ever a true limitation to progress. We used the knowledge that we did have, to gain even more. Apparently that works!
