Scientific theories don't get proved in the sense that mathematical theories do. Scientific theories can be disproved (falsified).

"Settled" is a subjective word, and not a formal description of anything scientific. Scientific theories can be disproved (falsified) but not proved (unlike mathematical theories which can be proved). So science doesn't prove things, and nothing is truly "settled".

But from a practical standpoint, some things are for most purposes settled. For instance relativity (both special and general) is settled to the extent we stake our lives on it holding every time we take an air flight guided by GPS. And before we were staking our lives on relativity's predictions, relativity had survived so many attempts at falsification, most scientists considered it settled.

But the term "settled" has come up recently in the politics of climate science. I would say this climate science is not "settled", certainly not to the extent something like relativity is "settled". But the fact that one can argue that climate science is not "settled science" is basically a red herring, we don't need "settled science" to drive policy - the overwhelming consensus on climate science is a good enough to drive policy.

There's a reason writing systems evolved from pictographic/ideographic to logographic and phonographic systems, and that is that these later systems are more expressive than the former. The same is true of formal, engineered writing systems: text based languages are more expressive and efficient than picture or diagram based languages. Text based languages can describe complex things more compactly than non-text based languages.

Hundreds of non-text based (AKA "visual") programming languages have been developed and have proven to be generally more limited than text based languages. When the description of a program reaches a certain level of complexity (which isn't very high) it's diagrammatic specification becomes much harder to comprehend than it's textual specification. I've seen visual programs that look like an incomprehensible mass of tangled wires that can be expressed in a couple pages of text.

However, programs of lower complexity can be specified by a comprehendible diagram, and in many cases that diagram is easier to understand by non-programmers than the corresponding text. Visual languages, when restricted to a specific, limited, domain, can be easier to understand by some.

But for general purpose programming, or moderate complexity of more, text is a much more efficient medium.