Our reality is based purely on our perceptions, therefore this can not be used as an argument for invalidating scientific evidence. If the benchmark for scientific testing is to provide an answer within the bounds of reality (which is limited by our perceptions) then this is definately good enough in nearly all situations.

I would also challange your initial premise. Can some of the current calculations and theories regarding string theory be considered as "limited by our perception?" I would say definately not!

Good scientific evidence is what we call reliable, logical, mutually confirming observations that support certain answers about how the world works. So how does one reach a true answer without using good scientific evidence?

The answer is chance. Using bad scientific evidence, or faulty logic, or just plain old guessing are all ways upon which, based on statistical probabilities, one could merely chance upon the true answer to a question without actually having good scientific evidence for it. Therefore science is not the only method of reaching answers.

But these answers are particularly useless to us until we verify their truthfulness against reality. How does one verify those answers? One has to fall back on the search for evidence to logically support those conclusions, in other words, good scientific evidence.

So, can you have all the answers within your reach using good scientific evidence?

In so much as the answers can be had, AND VERIFIED, then yes, "it" "has" all the answers.

Excellent argument. Thanks for your wonderful answer, I agree with you completely.

However, I think you'll agree with me when I say that all of the scientific knowledge we have today is insufficient to prove or disprove just about anything. A lot remains explained. And theories are THEORIES, not necessarily facts that can't be refined further, or are 100.0% correct.

Which brings me to the question of my next debate. I hope you'll participate.

Then you'll enjoy my next debate even more: Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?

So if take ice out of the freezer and it let it melt on the counter, it is subjective draw the conclusion that higher temperatures melt ice?

I will concede the point, well done sir.

Science has a long way to go before:

1. It figures out its got bugs

2. It can put a dent in its pride by saying so

The truth is out there. (You don't need science to prove it)

*Too roo roo roo roo roo, to roo roo... (anybody remember the X-Files?)

We do not and cannot know everything. Humans are limited by their perceptions. Subjectivity changes the results of so-called objective scientific testing.

Answer the question dammit. Guys who think science cannot be challenged should realize their so called 'progressive' approach is actually retarded.

I was purposely avoiding the question as its a bit of a silly one. Of course it doesn't have ALL the answers, but the things that it does have the answers for should be held in a higher regard than any non-scientific answers.

I absolutly did not say that science can not be challanged. Infact, being challanged and changing your opinion when new evidence emerges is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method.

When we are wrong, we admit it. We attempt to understand what is now believed to be the more accurate method, and it carries on from there. That's why I love science.

Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. Science is one of the only things where people put truth before their pride at every level.

Of course science doesn't have ALL the answers, but an answer based on the scientific method should be held in the highest regards amongst the other possible answers.

Your argument reeks of a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific community works.

Ah, what a way to word your question.

No, scientific evidence does not have all the answers at all. Evidence is just that, evidence. The answers come from analysing and evaluating said evidence.

It's pretty clear by the use of the word "all" that this isn't a true statement. The adjective "all" applies universality to its subject, which is a dangerous thing to do and often leads to the hasty generalization fallacy.

Even worse, in this statement, the word "all" is being applied to a subject that's built upon skepticism of its own claims. Science doesn't ask what we know to be true but what we know to be false; science works by eliminating possible explanations until there are the fewest amount of possible explanations left. Science then chooses the most reasonable of those explanations without entirely discounting the rest.

Science doesn't prove anything true it simply proves some things false. Since that's the case, it's impossible for science to have "all the answers."

I agree with you. Science does hold a high regard for me and always has. I was trying to say that sceintific analysis is independant of the truth, which may or may not be explained through scientific reasoning at this point of time. I am also trying to make a statement that you shouldn't fall back on science to provide you with all the answers, its boundaries will confine you to being a robot.

As a PhD researcher I can say with full confidence that NO! Scientific evidence does not have all the answers! Good research just leads to more questions, and that is why I personally love science!

I'm glad to have come across someone with your level of education and the frankness to make such a statement. Your participation is very valuable to CD in general and especially in this debate. THANKS!

So absolutely correct. Science is constantly evolving, new answers may breed further questions and what we know today to be true could be completely different from what we know tomorrow.

Scientist are aware of this, for instance, check the last few pages of the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

They know they don't have all the answers, and they are pointing our where their data is weak, and where it is strong.

That's just one interpretation of that act. Some might claim the freezer harbored coldness demons who made the water hold its shape. Ancient Egyptians used to make ice in the ground (there were no freezers) so perhaps they believed that caves protected the ice.

When I drop a penny, is the penny drawn to the earth because that's where it originated or does something pull it down... or possibly it's the mass of the earth curving space-time which seems to move other objects toward it.

My point is, one can interpret the results of an act numerous ways. Think of all the "scientific" conclusions which have been erroneous.

It is most likely impossible, in the projected life-span of the universe, to evaluate all the arguments for the game of Go.

And that's just one game.