The Instigator
JBphilo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
charlie.cooke
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science is not sufficient to explain why things are the way they are.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 67644
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

JBphilo

Pro

I'll be arguing that we cant be sure that science is a useful tool for explaining why things are the way they are. My opponent will be arguing that science can be used to explain the world as it is. Definition of causation: the action of one event causing another.
charlie.cooke

Con

I'll accept. Instigator has the burden of proof, and therefore must provide sufficient justification for his claim.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JBphilo

Pro

Imagine you are Adam, a human that comes into existence as a cognitively functioning human. Before being shown a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball you are asked what you think might happen as a result of the collision. How would Adam even imagine what was going to happen? Maybe the ball that was hit first will stop on impact with the other ball. Maybe the ball will change direction after the collision. Maybe one ball will change colour. You could not know without prior experience to call on.
Therefore whenever we are saying we know what's going to happen (science) we are always drawing on past experience.

What argument can we give to justify the belief that what has happened in the past will happen in the future. I assert there is not any and therefore science is flawed. Here are the reasons why.
1. Its not self evident, you can coherently imagine it not continuing in the future in the same way. You cannot give any proof that it will continue.
2. Nothing you learn through your senses tells you how it (say the billiard ball) will continue to behave in the future.

Therefore the only other justification is appealing to our past experience, but that makes the mistake of assuming from the off exactly the thing we are trying to justify. By saying the future has always been like the past, in the past is not a satisfactory justification of induction.

Since science relies on cause and effect I argue that now this cause and effect has no justification, any body of understanding built around it (science) cannot be accepted as certain proof of what will happen in the future.
charlie.cooke

Con

charlie.cooke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JBphilo

Pro

My opponent has forfeited so I extend all my arguments.
charlie.cooke

Con

charlie.cooke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JBphilo

Pro

JBphilo forfeited this round.
charlie.cooke

Con

charlie.cooke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.