The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

1 extended question that destroys science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,171 times Debate No: 75919
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (347)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

science cant prove aliens are not true based on lack of evidence, so does that mean that aliens are true or false to a science believer? and based on what?
2-D

Con

I accept. What is the question that will destroy science?
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you dont understand it?

okay, is the unknown true? and if so, is the known false?
2-D

Con

Pro"s argument does not support the resolution. He suggested that we can never really be absolutely certain of anything but this has nothing to do with science. Google defines science as, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment [1]." From this perspective, since systematic study has not provided proof for aliens, a "science believer" does not believe aliens exist.

This does not mean that they believe that aliens do not exist which is a separate claim that we would need evidence to establish. Since it is impossible to know everything you cannot prove a universal negative so it is impossible to prove that aliens do not exist. The way Pro presented the question is a false dichotomy. You do not need to believe that aliens are true or false. The intellectually honest position is to have a lack of belief that aliens exist and not to claim that they do not exist.

Absolute Certainty

Science does not claim absolute certainty and all successful models of reality are still called "theories" such as the germ theory of disease [2] or the theory of gravity. These models describe reality based on the observable evidence. The moment new evidence is discovered the theories will change to adjust to new discoveries. This is how the model of the atom went from a solid sphere to a sphere with electrons in specific orbits to the modern model of protons and neutrons at the center with electrons revolving at specific energy states [3].
So you see that absolute certainty is incompatible with science.

Science works

Every day you see evidence that science is an effective method for understanding the structure and behavior of the physical world. Every time an airplane flies in the sky, a cell phone is used or you turn on the lights you prove that hundreds of scientific theories are an accurate description of reality. We will know if the, "unknown is true," when we discover and research it. The "known" may be discovered to be false after more research but this really does nothing to destroy science.
-
To sum up, the questions Pro has mentioned have nothing to do with the resolution. If absolute certainty cannot exist science still works. The fact that science cannot prove a universal negative (like aliens do not exist) does nothing to establish that science is false.

[1] https://www.google.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://atomictimeline.net...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

i have suggested no such thing as there cant be absolute certainty, i asked you a simple question..

are aliens true? im not talking about the existence of aliens, im talking about what they are, do you understand this completly simple question?
2-D

Con


Absolute Certainty


Well, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth but the lack of certainty is a common objection to science and it looked like your argument was headed that way. In fact it still sounds like this is part of your objection since you are trying to draw a distinction between what we believe and what is literally true. This still sounds like you are drawing a distinction between what we believe and what we claim to know for certain which you are calling truth.


Pro is Using Non-standard Definitions or not Making any Sense


If this is not what you’re talking about then what your saying is not making any sense and a question about aliens does not destroy science. It may help if you define true as you are using it. Google defines true as, “In accordance with fact or reality,” or, “accurate or exact [4].”


This is still along the lines of certainty so I would have to say I don’t know. I have no positive belief that aliens are true (in accordance with fact or reality) but they may be. I don’t know. When you say you are not talking about existence but, “what they are,” I don’t see the distinction you are trying to draw or any connection with science. Using the word true is not helping. You are going to have to elaborate because you still have not made your point.


Your question is not making sense and it’s not a simple question. If using standard dictionary definitions your question cannot be interpreted correctly then you are just not making sense. This is not an attempt to communicate clearly. If there were a solid point to be made then it would be better to just state it directly.


-


Once again, Pro has not been able to build a connection between some obscure questions and the destruction of science. He has not responded to my abbreviated, straightforward argument that science works as intended so it clearly cannot be destroyed by a question. Pro has presented no arguments to support his resolution.


[4] https://www.google.com...


Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

if you grab a rock and its in your hand is the rock true or false?

dude you are a walking talking strawman
2-D

Con


Straw men


Yes, virtually every response to nonsense must seem to build a straw man. I’ve encouraged you to clarify, provide definitions or even attempt to connect your vague questions to the destruction of science but you haven’t. Responding to vague nonsensical questions is difficult to do without making some basic assumptions.


Questions: true or false apply to statements not objects


So far Pro has asked seven vague questions along the same lines and made a few assertions while providing nothing that even resembles an argument to connect them to the resolution. The most recent question, like all the others, doesn’t make any sense. “if you grab a rock and its in your hand is the rock true or false? [sic]” The best answer to this question is, “that does not make sense.” Pro is simply avoiding and obfuscating while indicating some deeper truth.


Propositions or statements are true or false not objects. At the same time Pro avoids making any proposition such as the rock exists. That statement is either true or false but those are not the only answers to the question.


When I give pro some line and try to interpret what he means by using true and false in an unconventional way he asserts that I am building straw men (misrepresenting his arguments). What else could you mean when applying true and false to an object other than questions of existence that he explicitly denies. Google defines false as, “not according with truth or fact; incorrect.,” or, “appearing to be the thing denoted; deliberately made or meant to deceive [5].” Again true and false don’t really apply to objects but to assertions or statements. At the same time they do indicate some condition of knowledge about existence in context.


“if you grab a rock and its in your hand is the rock true or false? [sic]”


I’ll try to answer this as honestly as possible even though it has nothing to do with the resolution. Pick your favorite they’re all sensible answers to a nonsensical question:



  1. That question doesn’t make sense.

  2. It depends on your definition of true and false excluding the reality of their existence as an interpretation.

  3. I don’t know for certain that the rock exists but I have sufficient evidence to believe it exists.

  4. I don’t see how that relates to the destruction of science.

  5. Rocks are not true or false. Those words apply to statements not objects.


-


Once again Pro brings nothing to the table except a vague question refusing to provide his non standard definitions or clarify. When I try to interpret what he is saying he simply asserts that I don’t understand or am misrepresenting him but will not provide a rebuttal. Pro has still provided not arguments to support his resolution or responded to mine.


[5] https://www.google.com...


Debate Round No. 4
2-D

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 5
347 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
girls only
Posted by SlenderKitty 1 year ago
SlenderKitty
Get a load of this

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
The sciences that do not work are....Political Science, Religious Science, and Experimental Science. Most other sciences do work, in the sense they create as much evil as they prevent.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
the only possibility*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
make sure to assert it thou, that is the only you have in reality
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
at no point have my views been messed with
Posted by 2-D 1 year ago
2-D
Reality messes with your views. I'm just another representative.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
as if you could
Posted by 2-D 1 year ago
2-D
Just messing with you.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
your assertion is false
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
vi_spex2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Graceful forefit by pro in last round.
Vote Placed by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
vi_spex2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I fail to see how Pro's question "destroys science" in any way...