The Instigator
Stupidape
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
lovecandy365
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Science can provide 100% proof that humans exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 82855
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Con

Pro will contend for the resolution and Con against.

Resolution: Science can provide 100% proof that humans exist.
lovecandy365

Pro

Well the scientists are human................
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Con

Claim 1: A scienfic hypothesis cannot be 100% proven.

Warrant:"Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. " [1].

Impact: Since a hypothesis cannot be 100% proven, science can never 100% proof anything whether it be humans exist or that gravity exists.

Claim 2: In order for a hypothesis to be scienfic it must be falsifiable

Warrant:

"Pseudo Science

According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification." [2].

Impact: Any scienfic theory must be falsifiable in order for it to be scienfic. Thus science cannot prove anything 100%. There will always be that 1/Googol chance that the theory is wrong. [3].

Links
1. http://www.livescience.com...
2. https://explorable.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
lovecandy365

Pro

lovecandy365 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lovecandy365

Pro

lovecandy365 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
Shadow, you know by any reasonable standard of evidence, that is not the same as saying you know with 100% certainty.
Posted by Sir_Shadow 1 year ago
Sir_Shadow
That's a bit deep to look into what I was saying :P

I meant by standard definition, not anything technical like that.
Besides, even if you do wake up in another existence you still exist? Besides, I know there's no invisible train speeding towards me because there are other signals, like the sounds the train makes and stuff.

Though I do get what you're saying
Posted by toretorden 1 year ago
toretorden
Sir_shadow, can you guarantee that you won't wake up one day to a whole different existence where it turns out you are in actuality something that would seem utterly alien to you? Also, the definition of human is not "whatever it is I am". And neither can you guarantee that whatever you perceive is all that matters. You may not perceive the train which is about to hit you, but it may still kill you. In fact, you can't know with a 100% certainty that there isn't an invisible train speeding towards you at this very moment.

Famous philosopher Rene Descartes already thought of this a long time ago. His famous proposition was "Cogito ergo sum", usually translated to "I think, therefore I am". Rene's point is your own existence is the one thing you can be certain of. Everything else, including your perceived "species", can be mistakes, imaginations, illusions.
Posted by Sir_Shadow 1 year ago
Sir_Shadow
Yes, because the definition of exist states we do.
Even if we don't exist, we still do to ourselves and this is all that matters.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
does it take an alien to prove it?
Posted by toretorden 1 year ago
toretorden
vi_spex, Con is right by default. Humans, which could be rigidly defined, can be proven to exist with something approaching 100% certainty, but 100% certainty is only a theoretical possibility. It is not attainable.

For all practical purposes, we treat 99,999% certainty as 100% certainty because when we do so, we are only 0,001% likely to be wrong. But it's hard to say beyond any doubt, however miniscule, that humans exist just like it's hard to prove that your whole life is not a lie and you are not actually just plugged into the matrix and that humans are just a figment of your imagination.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
he is wrong by default
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
This is a very devious attempt at using semantics to win.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
certainty is the opposite of doubt
Posted by toretorden 1 year ago
toretorden
This is not a discussion about humans, but rather on science and the nature of proof. As such, the title can be a bit misleading.

Also science doesn't really work with 100% proof, that's more a media thing. Science generally deals with surity or confidence between 95% to 99,999 (etc) %, meaning that the 100% theoretical proof is generally unattainable. This idea that, discounting Decartes "cogito ergo sum", basically nothing can be 100% proven is actually an important, underlying part of scientific philosophy. Hence, a claim that something can be proven 100% by science is actually contradictory.

So, in order to debate that this can be proven 100%, the person doing that would have to try to debate that science can do something that science already has said it can't for about as long as we've had scientific philosophy. Hence, I love the topic, but not how the claim is proposed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Stupidapelovecandy365Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF