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

Science is false

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 37614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Helooooooo ddo. Your looking fabulous as always. Ima true genuis. I study all science over the mounth and came to conclusion that science IS wrong. Sicence IS false. First round for acceptence only and in second I explain how all of science is flawed and wrong and give explanation for the appearnce of science.


I pray that we will have a good debate.

Debate Round No. 1


The yum yum cod accept my debate. ohhh i pray he not get owned too bad.

Axiom 1; Something wit a contradiction is fasle
premise 1: Science has contradictions
Premise 2: science isn't true
Pos: Sciene is false

Scientists study real world and come up with models. But sciensts disagree and contradict. But evidence is still the same

The modern theory of matter rests upon such supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has "grown" until it can explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:

  1. It is only a mathematical model consisting of equations and does not usually specify physical structure for elementary particles.
  2. It frequently contradicts itself.
  3. It provides no mechanism for such fundamental processes as the exchange of energy.
  4. It has to rely upon numerous assumptions

Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions. Orbiting electrons in the atomic shells or nucleus must radiate energy into space according to well proven laws of electricity and magnetism and demonstrated daily by broadcasting radio stations. Atoms with orbiting electrons should suffer radiation death, but they are obviously stable! Originally, this inconsistency was simply postulated away by Bohr, though he well understood the contradiction. Bohr took the view that "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth," and to remove all doubt, he argued that the two statements "There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally insightful propositions.

One day, "A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. `Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' `No,' answered Bohr, `I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,' he added, `they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.' "

Since atomism allows non-causal events and actions, the contradictions in atomistic theory are explained in terms of assumptions or a disconnection of cause and effect. In contrast, consistency is inherent in the law of cause and effect.

Scientst all look for the thory of everything. But it funny because they contradict each other so they looking for something to resolve contradcition. THe funny thing is a contradiction es contradiction it cant be resolved bc its a contradiction. We must throw it out.

Another augment. The universe not real! The world is fake then the scientific models that try explain word also not true and fake because the world es not true adn fake.

THe world looks to be a computer simulation. A secular argument say a civilazation will one day be smart enough to create a simulated universe. If they do they will sell billions of copies of the game to get lots of money. IF billions of copy sold then this universe is a billion more times likely to me a simulation than the real weorld.

Odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1 that universe is simulation. The universe es looks like a computer simulation

Digital Processing All events/objects that arise from digital processing must have a minimum quantity or quanta.
Quantum Minima Light is quantized as photons. Matter, energy, time, and space may be the same, i.e. have a minimum amount.

Maximum Processing Rate Events in a VR world must have a maximum rate, limited by a finite processor.
Light Speed The speed of light is a fixed maximum for our universe, and nothing in our space-time can move faster.

Non-local Effects A computer processor is equidistance to all screen “pixels”, so its effects can be “non-local” with respect to its screen.
Wave Function Collapse The quantum wave function collapse is non-local – entangled photons on opposite sides of the universe may instantly conform to its requirements.

Processing Load Effects If a virtual processing network is overloaded, its processing outputs must be reduced.
Matter and Speed Effects Space curves near a massive body and time dilates at high speeds.

Information Conservation If a stable VR is not to gain or lose information it must conserve it.
Physical Conservation Physical existence properties like matter, energy, charge, spin etc are either conserved or equivalently transform.

Digital Equivalence Every digital object created by the same code is identical.
Quantum Equivalence All quantum objects, like photons or electrons, are identical to each other.

this not stupid science fiction.

Cosmic ray also could be proof.

The world not true science is not true (its false).

Wat is these things we see? elections are gods will protons are gods thoughts, energy is gods focused power dark energy is gods raw power. The universe is in the mind of god it a simulation inside god being complete control. YOur computer not real its mental matter of god your d1ck aint real it a part of gods excavating immensant mind.



Opening Arguments

According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, science is:

“knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” [1]

And by the same source, a contradiction is:

“a difference of disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true.” [2]

Axiom: A fact is true.

Premise: Science is knowledge based upon fact.

Conclusion: Science is therefore true.

Science itself cannot be disproven, but instead the scientific theories presented by scientists. For example, if evolution is falsified, that doesn’t mean that science is false, but instead that science has shown that evolution is false.

Assuming this argument is true, allow us to look at my opponent’s arguments. I’ll go into detail and classify my opponent’s arguments into their conditions of rebuttal.

A. My opponent assumes that if one scientific theory, (or many for that matter) is proven false, science is proven false. He implies so with his original position, ‘Science has contradictions and therefore cannot be true’, yet only backing it up with things similar to ‘Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions’. This is fallacious, and what I call a ‘non sequitur’ argument (a.k.a. missing the point, or not backing up the thesis).

For the theory to be false, science must be the one to disprove it. Scientific theories cannot disprove science because science is required for those scientific theories to be true.

B. Because my opponent cannot logically attack my position by disproving scientific theories, he tries a different approach, by stating, “The universe is not real!”. There is one massive problem with saying this, however. And that is that his argument is, again, non sequitur. The evidence that he has lined up for this have been simple comparisons between our universe and a computer simulation, and because science is the knowledge of our natural world based upon fact, even if it was true that the world is a computer simulation, it would remain to be science.

Science is not false, because science, by nature, is always true. It is man’s great quest to discover the truth. Truth cannot be false while still remaining true. Scientific theories cannot be proven false while still remaining science.

My opponent has not yet provided a logically intact case for the falsity of science. No further evidence is necessary to prove my point.



Thank you very much,

Debate Round No. 2


Anti-atheist forfeited this round.


Pro Forfeit.
Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
I think one must really look at what Science is all about.
It is wrong to think that what we detect with our senses, or Perceive is True.
Because we don't detect or see with our senses, we actually perceive with our brains or minds.
Buddhism has taught this for a couple of thousand years, that what we perceive is not always truth.
Because our brains are the most deceptive organs in the universe, our brains deceive us 24/7 for all our lives.
Science is an attempt to correct our perceptions, by accumulating, recording, categorizing and comparing perceptions to prove which perceptions are indeed correct.
This is what science is really about.
Finding the truth in what we perceive.
A million people can believe in a perception, e.g. The World Is Flat.
But, when these perceptions are tested against other perceptions and gathered evidence which helps to focus the perception into a practical, testable theorem.
Then when this testing proves beyond doubt that those million people have the wrong perception, those million people will have to correct their perception in light of the evidence against them.
As many philosophers have stated: Many people believing a concept to be true, does not make it so.
It is quite possible to fool all people on Earth that a misconception is real and factual without Science.
It is only Science that can test the truth of such misconceptions and bring those people back to reality.
Without Science, religion would have the entire world completely Fooled.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
I agree, science, or our observations of the natural world, by themselves cannot produce anything false. However, simply because our observations are true, does not mean that our interpretations of them are false.

The observations remain true regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is true or false.

For example:
I walk along the beach, and notice that everyone around me has feet. Suddenly, a person crawls out of the water screaming, his feet being eaten off by a shark.
The observation was not that everyone around me had feet, because said observation would be false the minute a person crawled out of the water with their feet eaten off, but instead that at this point in time, the people I saw around me appeared to have feet.

In the same way, if I was viewing a mirage of a pirate ship in the middle of the desert, the observation would not be that there was a pirate ship in the middle of the desert, but instead that at this point in time, there appeared to be a pirate ship in the desert -- regardless of whether or not the pirate ship was actually there.

There is no real evidence you can put forward to disregard the validity of observations -- especially since just a few arguments ago you made a strong case on why observations are true.

Thank you,
Posted by Ratio_Mentat 3 years ago
Yummy Cod,

Of course science would be false because the earth isn't flat, or that there is no speed of light, or that there is no aether, or all other false scientific hypothesis. They all had something in common, which was that science. And since science only has truth, as you have stated, it would mean that science can't produce anything false. Again, simple logical operation happens known as Modus Tollens. So falsity is transmitted to all of science, since they all are logical consequence of science. You couldn't even, in principle, show that science is false, under what you have presented. It becomes non-scientific, and thus use non-science as the source of all of scientific hypothesis, or science. Which is contradictory.

Furthermore, all our observations of the natural world are science, like babies observe the world and it isn't science. Science might have hypothesis about how they do it, but it isn't science that is making the observation for those babies or etc. And with the White Raven point, our hypothesis are already known to have black swans since false hypothesis imply true things, which is that there are some black ravens.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
"But as you have admitted, science has presented false hypothesis. This proves that true isn't captured by science."

By your reasoning, just because the earth is not flat, science is false. Allow me to take this from a different approach.

I have consistently argued that whether or not hypothesis have been falsified or not, science remains true because we must use science itself, or our observations of the natural world, to achieve the falsification of hypothesis, you cannot claim that the falsification of hypothesis falsifies science.

As an example:
All Ravens on Earth are Black. (consider this the fundamental hypothesis of fundamental science)
All Ravens on Continent of North America are black. (hypothesis of science built up from fundamental)
All Ravens in US are black. (new scientific hypothesis that consistent with others before it)
All Ravens in New York are black.
All Ravens in Manhattan are black.
There is a Raven in Manhattan and white. (Observation/Fact/Experience)
This means that all previous hypothesis stated above are false. However, contrary to your belief, it does not mean that there is no such thing as a black raven in Manhattan -- it simply means that not all ravens are black.

Remember that science is our observations of the natural world. Our observations are true, and what is true cannot be false, therefore the hypothesis must be false instead. The hypothesis is our interpretation of science (our interpretations of our observations, if you do not understand), and because you cannot say that the observations are false based upon our interpretations of them, the hypothesis themselves must be incorrect and not science.

Thank you,
Posted by Ratio_Mentat 3 years ago
Yummy Cod,

Your argument presented this: "Science is not false, because science, by nature, is always true."

Assuming that it is true that truth only implies true & true is captured by science, then it is true that truth only captured by science. But as you have admitted, science has presented false hypothesis. This proves that true isn't captured by science.

So Science is always True and Never False, than go on to say that you aren't say that science must be true, which means it is possibly false. We of course know that it would be possibly false since shown itself to be false. But to avoid falsification by science presenting false hypothesis, you say that our observations were wrong instead of our hypothesis were wrong. However, our observations aren't the ones that are false, but our hypothesis are the ones that are false. Our observations are facts and true, so it couldn't have been what is true that is false.

Instead, we learned our hypothesis were false and proposed new hypothesis that accounted for all previous observations, both consistent with previous hypothesis and inconsistent with previous hypothesis. So this shows again that Science is false by basic logical operation of Modus Tollens, as previously shown.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
@Ratio_Mentat. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my argument when my opponent didn't. I do want to note, however, that your argument does not accurately show my argument's deficiency.

I am not arguing that science must be true even if there is a contradiction to science, but instead that all contradictions to scientific theories and laws, rendering those theories and laws as false, do not mean that science is false but rather our original interpretations of it.

For example, in ancient times people believed the earth was flat. Suddenly it was proven that the earth, however wasn't flat. Our observations of science were disproven, and the contradiction to our observations became science, and now it is accepted that the earth is round.

In the same way, if it is discovered that the earth isn't round, and is suddenly an illusion, it would remain science because even though our interpretation of the natural world was disproven, our new interpretation of the natural world is science.

My argument is that science cannot be false based only upon the falsification of our interpretations of the natural world.

Thank you,
Posted by Ratio_Mentat 3 years ago
The Yummy Cod: "My opponent assumes that if one scientific theory, (or many for that matter) is proven false, science is proven false...

Science has contradictions and therefore cannot be true", yet only backing it up with things similar to "Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions". T

Assuming that it is true that Science has a contradiction & a contradiction cannot be true implies that it is true at Science cannot be true. The argument is not fallacious at all, but Barabara Syllogism. If Science implies a contradiction & a contradiction implies can't be true then science implies can't be true. That is a hypothetical syllogism, or Law of Syllogism.

Furthermore, your quote shows that your opponent following Proof Rule of Modus Tollens, or denying the consequent. We know from Truth-Table that Truth implies Falsity is False. Truth never implies falsity. We also lea that Falsity implies Truth. Truth and Falsity implies Truth.

Here is a sample of their argument, and your reply is deficient.:
All Ravens on Earth are Black. (consider this the fundamental hypothesis of fundamental science)
All Ravens on Continent of North America are black. (hypothesis of science built up from fundamental)
All Ravens in US are black. (new scientific hypothesis that consistent with others before it)
All Ravens in New York are black.
All Ravens in Manhattan are black.
There is a Raven in Manhattan and white. (Observation/Fact/Experience)

We notice immediately that all of them are false. Truth and Falsity follow from False hypothesis, so we shouldn't be surprised. We also see that all the hypothesis are false by logical implication. It's necessarily true that they are false.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con countered all Pro's arguments and Pro couldn't since he forfeited. Also, his spelling and grammar was just terrible.