Does scientific evidence have all the answers?
Without a doubt!
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Hell no!
Side Score: 37
|
|
|
|
|
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. Side: Without a doubt!
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.
Supporting Evidence:
Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?
(www.createdebate.com)
Side: Without a doubt!
|
7
points
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- They know they don't have all the answers, and they are pointing our where their data is weak, and where it is strong. Side: Hell no!
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." Side: Hell no!
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. Side: Hell no!
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! Side: Without a doubt!
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. Side: Hell no!
1
point
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. Side: Hell no!
|
