CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Sitara versus GuitaristDog: do scientific facts exist?
Let me plead my case before you vote: a scientific fact is an observation backed up by proof after a scientific study. A list of scientific facts: Humans have DNA, RNA, and chromosomes, bacteriea, fungi, viruses, and parasites exist, AIDS is caused by the HIV retrovirus, humans are related to primates, in humans pregnancy last 9 months from fusion of the male and female pronuclei (fertilization) aporximately, men have XY chromosomes, and women have XX chromoseomes, too much radiation can cause cancer, and so on. Are you really going to tell me that these are not nproven scientific facts? My note to GD: this is not a drama post, but a debate I am posting so everyone can take part. We laso have neortransmitters.
I think people confuse the fact that is no true "proof" in science with the idea that there is no fact. Science basically divides knowledge under its purview between two categories: Facts/laws and hypothesis/theories.
Facts and laws are observations that continue to hold true under similar circumstances.
If you mix certain chemicals and always get an identical reaction, it is a fact that those two chemicals, at least in the tested environment, will yield that reaction.
If sometimes you get one reaction and sometimes another, then the fact is that two reactions can be obtained. You can start to hypothesis "why".
And yes, occasionally facts will change as science gets better. This just means we weren't right about it in the first place, but the actual fact was there all along.
The questions that sparked this debate was whether they could be considered scientific. He was not claiming that facts don't exist, but that there is no reason to label them scientific. What would calling it scientific mean? I am not trying to challenge you, just answer your question.
'Scientific' is defined as 'of or pertaining to science or the sciences.'
Asserting that scientific facts do not exist, therefore, is an assertion that either 1) facts do not exist at all or 2) No facts are at all related or relevant to science.
Some assert that facts do not exist- for those who believe this, there really isn't much room for meaningful discussion relevant to the subject at hand, so you'll have to excuse me for not addressing that viewpoint.
So that leaves us with the idea that facts do exist, and the question of whether any of them, even one, or at all related or relevant to science. Here's one example: Acetic Acid (vinegar) reacts energetically and visibly with Sodium Bicarbonate (baking soda) visibly releasing carbon dioxide gas. This is a fact that can be tested reliably in just about any kitchen, and as it is one of the most basic chemical reactions most individuals learn in school, is certainly related/relevant to the science of chemistry.
As such, we have demonstrated that at least one fact exists that is scientific- the claim 'Scientific facts do not exist' is therefore refuted.
It is a kitchen fact as well; the two aren't mutually exclusive.
There isn't a "point" to labeling it as a scientific fact, anymore than there is a "point" to labeling it a kitchen fact, except insofar as that helps us categorize things. It is not labeled as a scientific fact as a means to an end, it is rather labeled as a scientific fact because that is how the words are defined; it is a fact that is relevant and pertains to science, or is scientific.
It doesn't have to get us anything. Creating labels such as 'birds' for one group of animals and 'mammals' for other groups of animals doesn't gain us anything other than a way to classify or categorize them.
Adjectives are used to qualify nouns in order to clarify the specifics of the meaning and categorize them accordingly, generally speaking. Why is any benefit beyond that a requirement?
it is a fact that is relevant and pertains to science, or is scientific.
Everything is related to science, this label is worthless.
As long as we aren't trying to make more of it than it really is, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't have to get us anything.
Adjectives are used to qualify nouns in order to clarify the specifics of the meaning and categorize them accordingly, generally speaking. Why is any benefit beyond that a requirement?
You just got through saying that it doesn't clarify anything, then saying that it does clarify things. You are getting mixed up.
I never made an assessment of the value of the label 'scientific' in regards to facts- merely that scientific facts do in fact exist by the definitions of the terms; I was addressing what the debate itself was about.
Not getting mixed up at all; read it again. I never stated that it doesn't clarify anything, I stated that the labels in question are only useful insofar as they help us categorize things. Adjectives generally clarify the meaning of a noun by modifying them to fit into a specific category or other. Where are you getting the idea that I don't think they clarify anything? Did I say something that implied that, or is it possible you just misinterpreted something, or read my post too quickly and confused one word for another?
I never made an assessment of the value of the label 'scientific' in regards to facts- merely that scientific facts do in fact exist by the definitions of the terms; I was addressing what the debate itself was about.
How can you address what the debate is about if you haven't done any assessment on what the term that is being discussed means?
Not getting mixed up at all; read it again. I never stated that it doesn't clarify anything
I quoted you, you said it.
Where are you getting the idea that I don't think they clarify anything?
When you said it doesn't get us anything. You know, part of the text I quoted.
Ah, but in my first post I defined scientific as 'of or pertaining to science or the sciences.' I made an assessment of the terms definition, I just did not make a VALUE assessment of the term.
I never stated that it didn't clarify anything. Seriously, re-read it; you never quoted anything that implied that either.
I didn't say it doesn't get us anything; i said that it doesn't necessarily NEED to get us anything. I stated that it doesn't really gain us anything beyond the ability to categorize things, and I also stated that categorizing things aids in clarifying them (though not in so many words, to be fair). Nowhere did I ever state that we get nothing from them, nor did I state that they clarify nothing.
Ah, but in my first post I defined scientific as 'of or pertaining to science or the sciences.'
Yeah, but that doesn't really mean anything. Science encompasses quite a bit. I am trying to tell you that labeling it scientific is not helping.
How is this confusing you so much?
WHY ARE WE USING A TERM THAT IS WORTHLESS? I am not confused about anything.
I think I am addressing the wrong part of your argument. You presented a false dichotomy I guess.
"Asserting that scientific facts do not exist, therefore, is an assertion that either 1) facts do not exist at all or 2) No facts are at all related or relevant to science."
A third option exists, that the person thinks the label implies something important, and just relating to science is not good enough for the label.
And I'm saying that it doesn't need to help in any way in order to be valid. The third option is irrelevant.
The debate is: "do scientific facts exist." Not "Is it reasonable or worthwhile to refer to facts as scientific."
P1- Facts exist
P2- Some facts are scientific
C1- Therefore, scientific facts exist.
We can express 'do scientific facts exist' mathematically. We'll use the variable X to represent scientific facts.
So the question is whether X > 0, or whether X = 0.
Stating that the label is meaningless because all facts are in some way scientific is not a statement that X = 0, it is a statement that X = 1. If X = 1, then X > 0, therefore scientific facts exist.
Consider an alternative analogy, and imagine that a nation uses a uniform black and white coloration for all of its police vehicles. One could then say that it is meaningless to refer to a police cars as being black and white, as all police cars are black and white, and they would not be incorrect. Similarly, one could posit that it is meaningless to refer to facts as being scientific and would not be incorrect, as facts and science are inextricably linked. However, the idea that 'no police cars are are black and white' because the label 'black and white' is largely meaningless is incorrect and does not follow.
If the rules for what pertains to science are stricter, this statement may not be true. You say pertains means that it loosely relates to science. Others would say that it would need to be a closer relationship.
If you use the label, shouldn't there exist its opposite, non scientific facts? What are non scientific facts?
I'm not aware of any working definition of the term 'scientific' that would exclude all established facts from the classification. If someone is making that assertion I would expect them to provide and justify that definition. I have not seen any definition of the word 'scientific' that excludes all of what we would call facts.
There certainly exists, conceptually, an opposite of sorts to most labels. Using my police car analogy, one could conceive of an orange and blue police car, even draw a picture of it. One could even build a car in the same style as the police cars in use, and paint it orange and blue. But so long as it is not used by the police, it is not a police car, and as such there are still no orange and blue police cars. Similarly, non-scientific facts could, under this definition, exist conceptually as facts that are in no way related or relevant to science. That doesn't mean that there are any facts that fit into this category anymore than there are any police cars that are orange and blue in my analogy.
Again, this is not a question of how much value (if any at all) there is in using the label, but a question of whether or not scientific facts exist. I maintain they do, and you have not brought that stance into any kind of dispute.
Edit: But I can play along too. Why don't we require a closer relationship? Perhaps a fact needs to be intrinsically bound to science to be considered a 'scientific' fact. What about the charge that an electron carries? This is a fact that is both determined/verified by science, and one that much of chemistry and molecular biology is predicated on.
I'm not aware of any working definition of the term 'scientific' that would exclude all established facts from the classification. If someone is making that assertion I would expect them to provide and justify that definition. I have not seen any definition of the word 'scientific' that excludes all of what we would call facts.
Science is not in the business of saying that something is final, but describing what is observed. Associating facts with science then gets a little weird because I don't understand the "why" of adding the label. Is there a difference between scientific facts and facts in your belief?
Again, this is not a question of how much value (if any at all) there is in using the label, but a question of whether or not scientific facts exist. I maintain they do, and you have not brought that stance into any kind of dispute.
My only argument is semantic, so the use of the label is all I am discussing. Since you dismiss that for no reason, you have not brought my stance any kind of dispute.
Edit: But I can play along too. Why don't we require a closer relationship? Perhaps a fact needs to be intrinsically bound to science to be considered a 'scientific' fact. What about the charge that an electron carries? This is a fact that is both determined/verified by science, and one that much of chemistry and molecular biology is predicated on.
Ok, that's fair enough. And In my belief, I don't see a difference between scientific facts and facts in general. Without scientific verification, there isn't much that can be accepted as fact. And you're right that, as such, use of the label doesn't really bring anything to the table in this case.
I agree with you on that much; I simply assert that the label does not need to have any value for it to be valid.
I was not disputing your stance- I was disputing that your stance brought mine into dispute, which it did not :)
Science does not call the charge that an electron carries a theory, that I'm aware of; where do you see that? I could be wrong there. That would just make it a bad example, though.
Ok, that's fair enough. And In my belief, I don't see a difference between scientific facts and facts in general. Without scientific verification, there isn't much that can be accepted as fact. And you're right that, as such, use of the label doesn't really bring anything to the table in this case.
I didn't know what you really meant by scientific fact, so I couldn't dispute you. Plus, I was just trying to point out the problem people would have.
I was not disputing your stance- I was disputing that your stance brought mine into dispute, which it did not :)
Yeah, but I wasn't really trying to bring your stance into dispute.
Science does not call the charge that an electron carries a theory; where do you see that?
The idea that the charge is negative is part of Atomic Theory. The concept is not a "fact", but a part of the theory, scientifically speaking. I hope that makes sense. It would be considered a fact, but not a scientific one.
Personally, I would say that science acknowledges facts, but I just don't know what you guys are trying to say is a scientific fact. But, I don't really care what you call them.
Supporting Evidence:
Atomic Theory
(en.wikipedia.org)
If it can be considered a fact, and science acknowledges it, could we not call it a scientific fact and still be accurate? Isn't the term theory used for pretty much all science (even that which is considered factual) simply to allow for the possibility (even if there isn't a conceivable one) of new data refuting it in the future? I also always saw it as a way to shut up the naysayers who reject what one may present as evidence for arbitrary reasons; they can't really object to one calling it a theory.
I mean, one could make an argument that scientific facts don't exist if one defines 'scientific fact' as 'that which is recognized as a fact within the scientific community,' but that doesn't really gel with the definitions of the words as written- and certainly some members of the scientific community consider some things fact that are technically just solid uncontested theory.
Rhetorical questions, really, though I wouldn't object to further rebuttal.
I think we can probably leave it at that- probably 1/3 or more of my points come from arguing semantics with you here and there, and I don't want to be accused of point-whoring :) Which isn't to say you shouldn't respond, just that I think we've spelled out our stances on the matter pretty well at this point and we've gone off on quite a long tangent from the debate itself.
If it can be considered a fact, and science acknowledges it, could we not call it a scientific fact and still be accurate?
Yeah, that is fine, but I didn't know that is what we were doing.
I mean, one could make an argument that scientific facts don't exist if one defines 'scientific fact' as 'that which is recognized as a fact within the scientific community,'
It comes down to proven. If someone is trying to equate theories being proven to facts. I am thinking more about people who have weird intentions, and not what you are presenting.
Your statement is oxymoronic. There are scientific facts. I presented several in my opening statement. I am into logic, not some hippy relevatistic garbage. By your philosophy, I could say the moon is made of green cheese and be right.
You could indeed say that the moon is made of green cheese and be right just as much as you could say it and be wrong. Only through scientific research will we determine what the true fact is.
The fact itself, however, is just that; a fact. Not a scientific fact, not a Barbiegirl fact, not a Fairytale Princess fact.
I agree with the scientific research, but I only believe in objective facts and reality, not relvetatism. If I say the moon is made of green cheese, I am quite wrong. I mean this in a nice way though.
Mon cher, I disagree. Science is reasonable. testable, provable, logic. The people who went to the moon did not discover green cheese, but rocklike matariel.
Perhaps I didn't specify why it is such a ridiculous notion. Essentially speaking, if everything you learnt up until this moment in time had been false then the concept of something being false would also be false.
So, if enough facts are proven to deviate from reality, then this somehow changes what the metric is for something to be incorrect?
If I've heard a story that did not occur in reality, then it is only true in the sense that it is part of the perception of reality that I live in, but it is not consistent with reality itself.
...And I'm saying that's not the appropriate context of false, I've been using it in the sense of what is reality, not the perception of it, which the only way that something being "false" could ever change.
