The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 92350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Science is dead. Kids aren't being taught what science is or how it operates because the teachers and professors and scientists themselves no longer know what science is or how it operates.

We are now living in the new dark ages. Because the vast majority no longer understand how science operates, most are now gullible to believing whatever they are told to believe is true 'by science'. Very few know how to think for themselves - to reason - to use logic anymore so they have no choice but to believe what the so-called experts tell them they must believe. Thus, scientists have become nothing more than medieval priests peddling their dogma and blind faith upon the mindless masses.

Once logic is abandoned people will easily believe the magical and fantastic without ever questioning the sanity of their position.

I would be shocked if anyone responded by correctly explaining both what science is and the two methods by which it operates.


Excluding North Korea, there is no nation where science isn't part of the curriculum (there is no source that proves this but the lack of any suggesting otherwise is proof in itself).

North Korea isn't the majority of people. Also,aside form a few religious cults, there are no children raised to ignore science even if they are not being taught a high quality of it. Science is involved in literally every single profession you can imagine. Artists need to know science to know what type of paint can be used on their canvas and what cannot. Computer science is indirectly applied to all professions that use anything computer-related to get their jobs done since the machine is itself being taken care of by them. Find me a modern workplace without a technician or engineer of any kind... You can't. Even remote family-run farms need to know a degree of science to run their machinery and mechanical tools of any kind.

Pro has zero evidence so far of their outrageous claims.
Debate Round No. 1


You are proving my point. You argue that "there is no nation where science isn't part of the curriculum" as if the word "science" has a universally agreed-upon meaning. But my whole argument is that very few actually understand what science is, and more importantly, how it operates. And if that is the case, then people are gullible into believing in anything or everything as long as they are told it is 'scientific'.

Furthermore because so few understand what science is corporations or bodies of guilds, academe and industry have relegated 'scientists' to a special (superior) class of expert who are largely to be unquestioned by anyone not in their field or clique. They have become high priests. And it is these very people who benefit the most by having the masses remain ignorant about how science operates. Don't pull back the curtain on the great and powerful Oz.

Either we have an objective understanding of what science is and, most importantly, how it operates or we have a subjective mindset. I am arguing that right now the powers that be have chosen to teach and propagate a subjective understanding, in order to protect their ruling status and elite racket.

So, if I am outrageously wrong and you are correct you should easily be able to properly define what science is as well as the two methods by which it operates. And why two?

If we lived in a society where EVERYONE universally understood the meaning and operations of science then this should be an extremely simply question. Yet in my experience very few, even credentialed professional scientists, can properly answer this elementary question. Why is that?


The reason why very few people can dictionary-define science and don't care for the two methods is that you don't need to do that to know what it is or how it operates.

You are confusing the ability to articulate something and one's understanding of it. On top of that, you make a very foolish leap of faith that me, Con, being able to answer your questions has any implication on most of the world. For all you know I am the minority.

A simple Google Search will find the answer you are looking for, I am not the errand boy here to do as you ask. You have yet to provide a single statistic to prove that what you say applies to most of the world in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2


"The reason why very few people can dictionary-define science and don't care for the two methods is that you don't need to do that to know what it is or how it operates."

You don't need to know what something is and how it operates in order to know how it should operate?

You are proving that this is not an articulation problem but one of understanding. You cannot articulate the very basic elementary definition of science nor explain its two methods of operation because you don't know otherwise you would simply articulate it and prove my thesis false. As for statistics, so far I'm batting 100%.

If a simple Google search is all that it takes then take it. My argument is that you can search Google all day long and probably won't find a "simple" answer. Of course that is intentional - to control knowledge you must control what knowledge to which people have access. I'm not saying the knowledge isn't attainable online, it obviously is, but that requires knowing where and how to look.

But you are correct about one thing - you could simply be a poor sample. Though you have to start somewhere.


Want me to copy and paste a definition of science? Okay, I'll do that, in fact let me paste 4 different definitions to show just how many different wordings one could use to define it and then you will see that there is no one definite answer but many ways to articulate what it is and most of the world does know it, they just wouldn't all word it the same way.

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

2. systematicknowledgeofthephysicalormaterialworldgainedthroughobservationandexperimentation.

3. knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

4. the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Sure, there are some words that are fairly consistent like observation, experimentation and knowledge but those 3 words relating to science almost everyone would associate in their mind. The fourth definition interestingly only uses the word knowledge and instead articulates observation and experimentation differently to the other three. The point here is that I bet anyone who isn't linguistically challenged or mentally stunted in any manner and above the age of 14 could say something very close to those definitions but perhaps not quite as articulate. You, on the other hand, who has all the burden of proof in this debate has yet to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your case.

As for the methods by which science operates and why I will now again do a Google search for the articulate wording of what many already know (the resolution doesn't state that this is about knowing why it operates that way but you mentioned in it in round 2 so I'll go into it).

I am confused what 'two ways' science operates unless you mean theoretical and practical but there is a scientific method which is taught in many school curriculum if not all. I'll even supply images to help you understand since you seem to be struggling with coping with the idea that science has a way of operating that is widely taught and understood by most of the world.

One of these images is even from the widely used Wikipedia, just to show how commonly known this is:

Sources (In order of the photos):
Debate Round No. 3


Although I give you props for researching and attempting an answer, your 4 differing definitions prove my point. You wrote "The fourth definition interestingly only uses the word knowledge and instead articulates observation and experimentation differently to the other three."

The fourth definition is the only one that is technically correct. I applaud you for at least finding a proper definition - and for acknowledging the "interesting" difference between it and the other three, which are NOT the proper definitions of science, are misleading and serve to confuse and distort the TRUE purpose of science.

So let's get to the brass tacks - what is science?

Science is nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge. That is its absolute correct meaning. Anything more is a distortion - an intentional distortion.

As for the two methods and your Googling, you received and posted the exact result I believed you would. "I am confused what 'two ways' science operates unless you mean theoretical and practical but there is a scientific method which is taught in many school curriculum if not all."

You were meant to be confused. You were intentionally led SOLELY to only one of the two methods because it's the only method the High Priests promote. The other method, equally important, is hidden from the masses or is articulated in such a way as to distort, confuse and mislead.

Let's go back to the meaning of science = the pursuit of knowledge. Why two methods? Because there are two DISTINCT types of knowledge and this is where the High Priests get nervous.

The two types of knowledge are:
1. Truth
2. Validity

Thus, being that there are TWO types of knowledge, there are therefore two methods - a specific method for determining each type of knowledge.

1. TRUTH or FACT is a type of scientific knowledge determined by applying empiricality. Truth or facts are verified by observation and experimentation. The scientific method is an adequate methodology used in determining empirical data, also known as a posteriori knowledge.

And the other type of knowledge - the one that the gatekeepers keep muddled and confused - is valid knowledge. also known as a priori knowledge.

2. VALIDITY is a classification for a type of knowledge determined through logic and forensics. Knowledge deemed valid or rational is always taken on faith, and not blind faith but an article of faith based on a rational trust and confidence in its validity.

Logic and classical reasoning are not taught seriously anymore and have largely been relegated to philosophical pursuits. Yet valid knowledge is as important to the pursuit of science as is empirical knowledge. If we aren't taught how to rationalize then we will cease being rational people and will be gullible to any sophistry to come along that tickles our ears. Welcome to the dawn of the New Dark Age where magic is indiscernible from science.

Lastly, everything we believe we do so by faith or trust. But if we are being 'scientific' we should all be taught and easily know which of our beliefs are true and which are merely valid. By only stressing a single knowledge called modern science the vast majority of educated people are incapable of differentiating empirical truths from mere hypothesis nor are they capable of determining whether what they are told is fact is in fact a fact.

Thus the High Priests are now free to promote a philosophical paradigm not grounded in objective science as being scientific and simultaneously have the power to deny paradigms that conflicts with their dogmas and beliefs.

Want proof? Does black matter exist?


"When all else fails spew keywords and sound smart."
- Pro's Motto

It's most hilarious that of the four definitions I provided, Pro states that only the fourth is correct. The first 3 were from real dictionary sites, the fourth was an amateur definition from a science enthusiast site. On top of this, the fourth specifically states that on top of seeking knowledge, science is also (and non in an unattached manner) linked to the understanding and application of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology (not two, just one methodology) based on evidence.

Science is not the pursuit of knowledge alone. Philosophy and political journalism are two of many examples of non-scientific pursuits of knowledge. Science is very specifically the pursuit of knowledge applicable only to the 'social' or 'natural' world. When the word social is used it refers to sociology and/or psychology not to politics or anything that would involve non-scientific-method conclusions to be drawn.

What is most hilarious is that Pro still has no provided even an inkling of evidence for the resolution. No statistics as to the majority of the world not understanding what science is or how it works is provided. I would also like to pick a hole in the resolution here as Pro is misapplying the word 'or' to mean 'and'. The wording of the resolution is such that if either one is understood by each member of the majority of the world, I win this debate, both needn't be simultaneously understood by most of the world for me to win.

Truth and validity are not the only two aspects of science, this is utterly ridiculous and they are also not methods of science either. Reliability, accuracy and precision are three other vital aspects of science, truth itself is actually nothing to do with science specifically but science indeed is seeking to be true at all times.

If Pro really wanted to call all aspects of science a method of science, why did he/she ignore reliability, accuracy and precision? The reason is that they are not even talking about methods of science, there is only one science method which is the one I showed in Round 3 in a pictorial manner. Pro is simply throwing out the keyword 'validity' and then randomly mentioning 'truth' as if these are methods of science. Truth is not science specific and validity is merely one of four aspects of every scientific experiment. Neither is a method of science in itself.

This black hole high priest nonsense is irrelevant to the debate, I'm not even sure what Pro meant by mentioning either of them so I'm not going to address either.
Debate Round No. 4


Con argues that I have not provided an inkling of evidence. But Con has provided that evidence. Con could not easily articulate the meaning of science nor was Con aware that there are only two methods by which science operates. Con has validated my very argument. which is that most are intentionally ignorant about what science is and how it MUST operate. Con confirms my argument by presenting three official definitions of science that are all wrong and lucks into a technically correct definition from an "amateur", which validates my whole point that the system is rigged and the powers that be are brainwashing the masses by intentionally deceiving people in order to keep them enslaved to the worldview of the elites.

Science is nothing more than the pursuit of factual or valid knowledge. "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know"

Science is not limited to the natural world. And Con doesn't get to define 'social' world, especially when relying upon a hilarious amateur's definition.

As was already explained there are ONLY two types of knowledge and therefore must be two methods of science in order to determine and validate both kinds of knowledge. How old is the earth? The sun? The moon? The Grand Canyon? There is no way to empirically know such answers yet that does not relegate science to silence. Science can and does have a role in attempting to determine such answers so that we may have some comfort of trust that our conclusions and beliefs are valid. And validating non-empirical phenomena requires the systematic application of the scientific rules of forensics as well as the rules and laws of logic. Philosophy and journalism are most definitely types of science. Both are pursuits that attempt to discover and articulate knowledge, be it empirical knowledge or merely valid knowledge.

The fact the Con repeatedly fails to understand that both types of knowledge (truth and validity) are worthy of human pursuit and that science must operate in accord with the kind of knowledge it is pursuing again confirms and validates my argument that Con, like most, simply does not understand how science operates. Con makes the false argument that I have ignored reliability, accuracy and precision while insisting there is only one method of science. But if Con had read clearly or had even an elementary understanding of the operations of science, he/she would know that I clearly embrace empiricality and the scientific method when determining a posteriori knowledge. Science demands an empirical approach in order to determine empirical knowledge.

Yet Con has no defense for the role of science regarding a priori knowledge and instead Con demands we limit what knowledge can be pursued when dealing with what Con calls "non-scientific pursuits of knowledge". The hilarious irony of those words when taken at their base meaning = the non-knowledgeable pursuit of knowledge". Ha.

The fact that Con fails to understand the nature of science, which Con apparently does with some prideful glee without any real awareness that he/she so consistently validates my original premise, reveals the plantation mentality of your typical apologist for the delusional High Priests of this new Dark Age.

Con has been conned into believing he/she is scientific yet he/she rejects the two natures of knowledge, confuses the purpose of science with the workings of science, subjectively limits what knowledge science may pursue, and denies the ultimate goal of science which is to determine truth. Con apparently is unaware that science is premised upon the idea that we live in a rational nature that follows rules based on an intelligent order (Socrates).

Con boasts of his great embrace of the scientific method as the end-all of what science may purse, just as Con was taught to do (again confirming my premise). But it is obvious that Con either doesn't understand the difference between an empirical fact and a valid theory or simply doesn't want to understand.

If Con is incapable of scientifically determining what is and what is not valid, a conclusion only determinable via logical rationalization, because Con was never taught the rules and laws of logic, then Con, like the great majority, will ultimately never care if their arguments are rationale.

People must be taught how to reason or reason dies. And the only thing that prospers in an unscientific environment, such as ours, are lies and deceptions.


I'm going to keep this short and sweet.

Validity and truth are not methods of science. They are not even 'forms' or 'methods' of knowledge. They are two entirely different things and only one is even an aspect of scientific experimentation (validity).

Science has one method, the scientific method, which I showed images of to help portray.

Science is not simply the seeking of knowledge, it's specifically the gathering of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world via experimentation and observation.

Throughout this entire debate Pro has come up with a totally false idea of what science is and furthermore has absolutely no clue what the scientific method is and instead says there are two methods one of which is one of four aspects of experimentation (validity). If Validity is a method of science then why aren't reliability, accuracy and precision also methods of science? in reality none of them are methods of science, there is only one scientific method.

Nothing in Pro's last round is worth rebutting, it's all gibberish to me. There are not two methods of science and science is more than the pursuit of knowledge alone. It's a specific kind of knowledge and specific method use dot find that knowledge that makes the pursuit a science. Most of the world knows what it is and Pro has yet again supplied zero stats to support the idea that most do not know either of the resolution's aspects.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 months ago
If I were posing this debate, I would have defined "science" as the systematic study of nature using the scientific method, with the scientific method being as in the flow chart Con used in the debate. Then the job would be to provide the results of polls or tests that show that people do not recognize what the scientific method is or what it implies. For example, there is a poll that shows that half of continental Europeans think astrology is "scientific," and plenty of polls showing American ignorance as well.

Because there are multiple definitions of science, Pro should have given his definition as part of the challenge. Being undefined, Con was free to define "science" independent of Pro's idea.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
hm, science=observation+math
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
Especially atheists.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
science works with logic.. fact, knowledge, truth, machine
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro as instigator has the burden to prove the resolution is true. The resolution requires Pro to prove that a majority of people do not what science is or how it operates. Pro offered no statistical evidence of the truth of the resolution or even anecdotal evidence. Con correctly pointed out the lack of evidence, but even if Con had said nothing be would have won. Con was correct that whether or not Con provided what Con thought of as the definition of science, one sample does not make a statistical survey, There are several definitions of science, and Pro provided correct dictionary definitions. He gave references. (Think of a word like "color" that has multiple true definitions.) Pro asserted he had the right definition, but gave no reference in support. The debate got a bite testy at times, but not bad enough to vote conduct one way or the other. S&G were tied.