1. Depending on the field, the scientific method is used to disprove, not prove.
I pose to you this question: Do you believe logic is not used in the creation of hypotheses? Do you believe the scientific method to be absent of logic?
2. Scientific or everyday use of the word? I used quotation marks for a reason.
3. We use history on a daily basis to infer future events. We do know we lack all knowledge. What is the point to even making this statement?

The scientific method is used to disprove hypotheses in all fields of science. That is how it works. Logic is used to come up with all possible hypotheses based on current knowledge and the scientific method is used to weed out those that are incorrect. That is how it works.
An appeal to the future is a fallacy, even if you do it every day. Saying that something in the future will be disproved and therefore your statement is correct is not a logical line of reasoning. An appeal to common practice is a fallacy as well. Just because something is done every day does not mean it is correct.
You really need to work on your reasoning skills. I do not agree or disagree with your initial statement, it's just that your line of reasoning is incorrect and I wanted to be friendly and point it out.

The purpose of our living is depending on each person.

One lives for sharing happyness and love,
one lives for protecting his beloved ones,
the other live for making everyones day worse,
some live for dying one day,
some live for asking themself what the purpose of life is.

And many more in my mind. Atleast that is what i think of purpose of life.
Though purpose of humans, is i think that we should explore. We are born to explore. For what we need to use resources from our planet to gather bigger and explore more and more from the universe.

Interesting suggestion that until we can explain everything with pure materialistic cause and effect it is unreasonable to say that everything is caused by pure scientific cause and effect. By scientific I mean our current knowledge of science.

In order to conclusively prove the Nihilistic model of existence we must understand all the chemical and physical processes which happen in our body as well as how humanity came to exist. I felt like arguing that a discovery to disprove Nihilism and show we do have a universal purpose is impossible to imagine but the results of the Rutherford experiment would have probably been similarly inconceivable to scientists before the discovery and subsequent creation of the Rutherford model.

Now this leads to an interesting train of thought, the shortcomings of the Rutherford model were apparent to the scientific community of the time (not sure if Rutherford himself realised, I think I have some recollection of him having admitted the flaws openly but this might be imagination). The flaws were obvious through logic and knowledge of Newtonian physics it became obvious that in such a model the electrons would crash into the nucleus or at least not be as stable as they appeared to be. So Bohr proposed a model of electron shells and energy being emitted in quanta. This is an example of scientific advancement through logic. Eventually this model was turned into Schrodinger's Cloud Model which in short was just a fuzzier more uncertain version of the Bohr Model.

Now what we see is theories being suggested and rejected for certain reasons (once a better model is suggested). The Bohr model is still pretty acceptable as a model of the atom and is in a way just a simplified Cloud Model. I feel like the Bohr model was reasonable as a theory at it's time because it explained the phenomenon and was not contradicted by the scientific knowledge of the time. Nihilism to me is the belief that everything can be explained by the sort of scientific understanding we have now (although discoveries in biology and chemistry may be made, general understanding of them is possible or compatible with current scientific knowledge). This, in my opinion, is completely reasonable.

And Redundant, I'm pretty sure logic is required for applying scientifically measured results in order to actually gain understanding of how those results can be explained. To rephrase this less aggressively, logic is an integral part of maths and science in general and since a lot of science is proved by math logic is necessary. I know you probably mean philosophical logic rather than critical thinking but still, science literally originated from philosophy and often the scientifically factual results are measured long before the logical analysis of such results brings about scientific understanding.

I deleted off topic posts. Things got a bit heated. I was just trying to be friendly when I criticized someone's reasoning. It was in no way a personal attack, but it was understood like that.
If you are unwilling to learn from critique that's fine by me.

Anyway, I can make a wrap up post I guess:
I was referring to the problem of induction that got solved by Karl Popper, the great thinker of the scientific method and critical rationalism. It is impossible to create scientific knowledge through logical reasoning. With logic you can prove almost anything you want. The cosmological argument is perfectly logical for example, yet it holds no scientific value.
Remember that logic is nothing that exists in nature. It is a science that concerns itself with the study of reasoning. It helps us understand problems and solve many of them.
Gross generalization: Scepticism is basically the rejection of logical truths. Sceptical people ask for scientific evidence rather than logical arguments when it comes to things that get proven with arguments rather than experiments and observations.

Feel free to look it up, don't bring it up in this thread. If you want to discuss this, create a thread about epistemology.

The purpose in life is found in the eye of the beholder, that's as simple as it can be. There is no absolute purpose in life that everyone must strive towards. That's why life is beautiful, you make your own goals and you make your own life.