I have seen a great number of individuals who take a step from "There is overwhelming evidence to suggest theory X is true" to "Theory X is true." (I think I misworded the former sentence intentionally to match the vernacular used, and should instead end with "theory X will not be falsified," but I'm more concerned with the transition between the two unless there's a reason for the first sentence's issues to dominate.)
As best as I understand the philosophy of science, this step is not considered canon, and yet I find a large number of individuals not only taking that step, but being confused as to anyone would ever consider not taking that step. Many will even aggressively defend their ability to take that step without criticism or even questioning. The result is a great deal of strife on politically charged issues where a large number of individuals claiming to speak for science make claims that I am not convinced are actually defensible within the bounds of science.
Since so many individuals take this step, I presume it has a name within the philosophy of science, so I'm curious what it might be called (permitting me to reference the works of others in my debates). I'd also like to know how well that implication is accepted within members of the scientific community, especially those who explore the philosophy of science.