The idea that there are laws of nature proven beyond a doubt doesn't accord with the history of physics. Newton's conception of natural law was held to be "true" until it was upended by Einstein.
Karl Popper actually proposes a nice criterion to distinguish science from non-science. He argues (whether persuasively or no) that scientific claims are falsifiable, where non-scientific claims need not be. That allows us to distinguish between things like astrology, whose claims are generally not falsifiable, and mathematical astronomy, whose claims are falsifiable.
Karl Popper actually proposes a nice criterion to distinguish science from non-science. He argues (whether persuasively or no) that scientific claims are falsifiable, where non-scientific claims need not be. That allows us to distinguish between things like astrology, whose claims are generally not falsifiable, and mathematical astronomy, whose claims are falsifiable.