Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#3600
Science is objective .
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
ossa_997
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 27,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1528
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
This is inspired by a debate on this site. Consider this a chapter 2 of arguments. A sequel if you will.
Of course we can mean different things when using the term science. I believe some on this platform interpret the word as well as the word evidence a little differently.
Besides the matter. The point is to verify justification, validity in any single position, perspective, case.
Any questions regarding the topic, please send a message or leave a comment prior to accepting the exchange invitation.
Round 1
Well science is objective.
What is science?
What is objective?
What is the relationship between the two?
The relationship is with one thing available in the same way everywhere to everyone and that other thing used to explain it.
For instance, gravity is an objective phenomenon. It has an effect on everyone, everything. Unlike tasting something. The taste of something may be to your liking and not to someone else. Thereby the liking of the taste is subjected.
The object of gravity is pulling force. It's not subject to a person flipping a twitch right where they happen to be.
This phenomenon is explained or understood with the language of science.
Thereby science being just the vehicle of anything that exist.
So with an objective matter, anything you use to communicate it with will have objective language, objective measures and research based on that matter.
The scientific method which uses empirical approaches to understand the natural world consists of demonstrable observations.
This means having eyes to see what is fact. Facts are objective. It's not just one pair of eyes that see. Only one pair, it's most likely that there are subjective conclusions.
Then compare those eyes with the next pair and the next. You'll start to get variations which with facts there is consistency.
Depending on the particular fact, there could be one, proving consistent variety.
But facts stand alone as what they are without an elective vote on them. They are which is with a person present or not, prior to their existence, during and post their expiration.
Facts are what they are regardless of awareness. People cannot dictate them but learn what they are.
Thanks Mall
-
Preliminary
PRO has conflated phenomena, which are objective, with the models that explain them: science which does not exist external to humans. Science is not subjective in the sense that I can turn off gravity. Rather, in the sense that the theories about gravitation are incomplete and unable to fully represent an external, objective universe.
1. Rebuttal
I. What is science
PRO has made a fallacy of composition in the insinuation that because science attempts to convey objective phenomena, science itself is objective.
PRO has made a fallacy of composition in the insinuation that because science attempts to convey objective phenomena, science itself is objective.
Almost all dictionaries will agree, noting that science is not facts about the universe, but rather knowledge about the universe.
CON agrees in the observation that the scientific method uses empirical approaches.
Yet the rest of PRO’s case appeals to the argument that facts are objective. Once again, facts being objective says nothing about the objectivity of science, which is the study of such facts as they pertain to human senses and experience. Why this denies the objectivity of science will be elucidated in my substantive.
-
2. Substantive
I.Empiricism and Hume’s problem of induction
This argument follows from Hume’s fork:
P1: All knowledge about objective truth is either analytic a priori (a relation of ideas in an analytic manner) or synthetic a posteriori (observed matter of fact, such as ‘this apple is red’)
P2: Induction through empirical processes does not fit in either of the aforementioned categories
C: Induction cannot claim to lead to any objective truth
For example, if I have seen 99 swans, which are all white I might arrive at the conclusion that ‘all swans are white’ through induction. If I travel to regions of South-West Australia, however, I will discover that the 100th swan I see might be black.
Similarly, science follows an empiricist inductive process which means it cannot lay claim to objective truth. On the other hand, we arrive at the conclusion that science can in most cases make fairly accurate predictions. The distinction between accurate predictions and objective truth, however, must be noted.
-
II. Affirmation of the consequent
If X leads to Y, that does not necessarily entail Y leading to X.
For example, the statement ‘if I live in Washington D.C then I live in America’ does not necessarily mean ‘If I live in America, then I live in Washington D.C’
Similarly, if theory X leads to observation Y, that does not mean the observation of Y (the empirical phenomenon) affirms the objective truth of theory X (the science that attempts to explain the phenomenon)
This is Popper’s criterion of falsification in science.
Science exists as theories that X leads to Y until we see a Y’ which falsifies X. Science is not an objective truth, but a model which attempts to explain objective truths, a delineation which PRO’s case has ignored. This leads onto my next point.
III. Science has never made claims to objectivity.
Since Newton’s extremely successful theory of gravitation was upended by Einstein’s general relativity, humankind has come closer to recognising that models of reality are fundamentally incomplete, even if they can make extremely good predictions.
Yet one does not deny that Newton’s laws are not science. They are very much scientific, in that they provide laws which explain human observation.
In present day science, general relativity and quantum field theory, two theories which have made thousands of accurate predictions of objective phenomena, are themselves theories incompatible with each other, suggesting that they are not the ultimate truth. Yet we cannot deny their science, nor their rigidity in formulation out of the scientific method. Science is fundamentally incomplete, and therefore cannot represent an external, objective truth.
3. Conclusion
Despite my argumentation, humans still launch rockets to the moon without failure, even with the use of Newton’s laws which we already know to be antiquated. This is because human’s do not need objective truths, which they may not ever arrive at, to act. Instead, humans rely on a series of approximate models gained through an inherently flawed process of induction
Science not being objective has never failed it. Science has never made a claim to objectivity, only to ever-improving models of the universe.
When Steven Strogatz said:
Since Newton, mankind has come to realize that the laws of physics are always expressed in the language of differential equations.
He did not mean the universe literally talks in differential equations, rather the human tool of differential equations is the best medium for humans to model the universe with.
The universe does not know calculus. Gravity might be explainable with F = mMG/r² but that does not mean gravity is F = mMG/r², but rather the mathematical laws which govern the universe are creations of humankind in order to better understand something which continues acting regardless of humans.
Round 2
"Rather, in the sense that the theories about gravitation are incomplete and unable to fully represent an external, objective universe."
Gravity either exists or it doesn't. It's either a fact or it's not .
Which side do you take?
"PRO has made a fallacy of composition in the insinuation that because science attempts to convey objective phenomena, science itself is objective."
I agree that science is objective.
"Almost all dictionaries will agree, noting that science is not facts about the universe, but rather knowledge about the universe."
What's the distinction between facts and knowledge here?
When you know something, it is by senses. Those senses detect which is.
Which is what? That which is . That which is not would not be fact.
"Yet the rest of PRO’s case appeals to the argument that facts are objective. Once again, facts being objective says nothing about the objectivity of science,"
Is science not objective to explain facts which are?
You use an objective experiment to prove something. The workings of science. Not a hearsay case that's exclusive to a private party but something exposed to all parties.
Difference between one person telling everybody they heard a voice on a tape recorder versus everyone hearing that voice on record.
"For example, if I have seen 99 swans, which are all white I might arrive at the conclusion that ‘all swans are white’ through induction. If I travel to regions of South-West Australia, however, I will discover that the 100th swan I see might be black. "
Is that supposed to be science?
The science is you seeing black and white creatures leaving the facts at that.
You can come up with a hypothesis, an idea, a theory but you have not completed the scientific method .
"Similarly, science follows an empiricist inductive process which means it cannot lay claim to objective truth. "
I not sure what this means. Looks like conflation. I think we understand that science is the system that undergoes testing procedures so we can see or empirically acquire what in the world is in front of us.
Unless you want to say what is in front of us is not really there, that's another discussion altogether.
We're looking at the natural physical world and we're looking at science to explain this natural physical world .
"On the other hand, we arrive at the conclusion that science can in most cases make fairly accurate predictions. The distinction between accurate predictions and objective truth, however, must be noted. "
I think you're only looking at the hypothesis side of it. If that was all that it was , then you'd have a valid position.
"Science is not an objective truth, but a model which attempts to explain objective truths"
Again how can it not be objective explaining something that is?
It's an objective explanation. Explanation (science), objective explanation, objective science.
"Science is fundamentally incomplete, and therefore cannot represent an external, objective truth. "
By you making this statement, what is science?
When something is demonstrated as true because of an experiment, does it not have a thing to do with science?
"This is because human’s do not need objective truths, which they may not ever arrive at, to act. Instead, humans rely on a series of approximate models gained through an inherently flawed process of induction "
Is it a fact that man knows how to build a rocket to travel to outer space?
Do you think man can accomplish this without that information?
If so, how?
"but rather the mathematical laws which govern the universe are creations of humankind in order to better understand something which continues acting regardless of humans. "
Pretty much what I said when stating this in Round 1:
"But facts stand alone as what they are without an elective vote on them. They are which is with a person present or not, prior to their existence, during and post their expiration.
Facts are what they are regardless of awareness. People cannot dictate them but learn what they are."
See no matter which interpretation, formula,equation or language one uses, it's still that universal communication to report about the world and all existence around us.
Maybe " language " is not the right word. When speaking of science, it may be more apropos to saying it's the communication of knowledge based on facts as it pertains.
Thanks Mall
-
1. Preliminary:
PRO has attempted to rebut merely through restatement of their points, as I will demonstrate throughout this argument.
2. Rebuttals
I. The fallacy of composition
See 1.1 in my first argument of this debate. PRO has merely restated their point without further engagement. I will offer another point here though:
PRO claims
'Again how can it not be objective explaining something that is?'
A statement which implies that every explanation of something objective is in itself, objective. In order for CON to win this point, they must simply bring up at least one counterexample where this is not the case.
Counterexample -
Objective fact: There are waves in the sea
Explanation: There is a God responsible for creating waves and driving the tides.
In fact, PRO's statement implies that the Greek Gods are objectively the driving force behind natural phenomena, that star signs objectively control one's personality and other such preposterous claims.
As another example, take Newton's theory of gravity, which not only explained gravity well, but explained it to an extremely accurate degree that is supported by most experiments, yet was later disproven by Einstein.
It is evident that a phenomena's objectivity does not entail any objectivity of the explanation, a gap which PRO has failed to distinguish or justify.
II. The Scientific Method
a. What is the scientific method?
PRO has made the claim that I am solely looking at the 'hypothesis side' of the scientific method, and in doing so has missed my entire point about the problem of induction and the affirmation of the consequent which the scientific method entails.
To be clear, I am not focusing on the hypothesis, but instead on the very nature of observation which the scientific method entails. One of hypothesis X then observation Y which either supports or does not support the hypothesis. Note that observations do not affirm truthfulness but instead only support a hypothesis or theory, but this is point 2. II in my first argument, so I will not expand on it too in depth here.
b. The scientific method is inherently incomplete.
A scientific theory about a phenomenon can never be proven to be true, but only strengthened through observations which match the theory. I refer back to Popper's falsification criterion which I presented in argument 1 that aff has ignored. And I must reiterate that this is not a view that originated with me, as PRO so claims.
By you making this statement, what is science?
This is not my statement. Science has always been a battle of self-contradicting theories which progess through an almost Hegelian dialectic. Science is an iterative process which builds off itself to get closer to the explanations of the truth. It never claims to have found truth in the process, as to do so is the most insidious form of dogma imaginable, which I will expand on in my substantive.
III. Strawmanning; misconstrual of CON's argumentation
a. Phenomena vs Theory
Gravity either exists or it doesn't. It's either a fact or it's not .
I have made it very clear from the outset of my case that a phenomenon is not the same as the science surrounding that phenomenon. That when I argue about incompleteness of a theory a gravity, I make no claim towards gravity itself, but instead about the theories which surround it. I bring up gravity especially, as despite PRO positing its theories to be so objective, it currently one of the most problematic, and most researched theories of modern physics (see, the search for a quantum theory of gravity). I have made it abundantly clear that an objective phenomena has nothing to do with objectivity of theory. So if PRO wants to argue instead that theories of gravity are objective, it have provided abundant sources to suggest that they are not.
b. Practical degrees of accuracy vs absolute truth
PRO has miscontrued the claim that science is not objective into the claim that science provides no use to humans at all.
Science does not need to provide an objective truth to be useful, but instead only needs to be accurate enough for humans to act to a practical degree. See the point about NASA sending rockets to the moon using disproven Newtonian theories of gravity, which PRO has conveniently ignored.
Also take the use of statistical mechanics, which uses approximations of hugely complex systems, which while built to be incomplete, provides enough for humans to construct rockets, turbines, and other such mechanisms interacting with fluids .
Substantive
I. Scientific dogmatism
As I have already stated, science is an iterative process which has never made claimed to truth. PRO has attempted to strawman my case as one which rejects all facts and scientific progress. CON makes the opposite claim: It is by accepting the fact that our fundamental theories can always be overturned by a more accurate one, and are never at the objective truth, that science makes any progress at all. To make a claim to objectivism is only to wallow in regressive dogma.
The case of gravity has alreay been brought up. Einstein dogmatically accepting Newtonian gravity as objective would not have lead to any revelution whatsoever.
Another such case is that of quantised energy: the basis of quantum mechanics. Such a revolution would never occured with dogmatic acceptance of classical continuous energy quantities.
No scientific theory is set in stone. And looking past physics and mathematics, where numbers and axioms are enough to derive most theories, we see that the case is even more so for other sciences such as psychology and biology, which, far from static dynamic subjects (one need only look at the quantity of fields in psychology) , are ones where theories dynamically overturn each other in a search towards the truth, never making claim of it.
Conclusion
'What is science?' PRO has asked. Science is a collection of theories, all of which, at any moment, could be overturned by a better one. Science is attempts at explaining objective phenomena, not the phenomona in itself. Scientists are constantly revising old theories, and positing new ones, through the understanding that the scientific method means no theory is ever set in stone. And that is a good thing, as it defeats the dogma which discreetly subdues scientific revolution and human understanding. No scientist has ever made a claim that theories are complete and absolute. If that were the case, there would be no more reason for scientists to exists at all. As science is not just a jab in the dark at new theories, but a constant revision and upturning of our roots to approach an explanation for it all, in the same way that a 1/x graph approaches 0.
Round 3
'Again how can it not be objective explaining something that is?'
"A statement which implies that every explanation of something objective is in itself, objective. In order for CON to win this point, they must simply bring up at least one counterexample where this is not the case. "
So I guess this is where you attempt to answer the question without evasion.
"Counterexample -
Objective fact: There are waves in the sea
Explanation: There is a God responsible for creating waves and driving the tides."
So you're example consists of explaining a real effect is caused by something that is fact or belief?
Also , does your posited cause stand the test of science?
You're throwing things together which is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
I'm not saying science works exactly to the example you're giving.
"In fact, PRO's statement implies that the Greek Gods are objectively the driving force behind natural phenomena, that star signs objectively control one's personality and other such preposterous claims."
But what did my statement state ?
Let's throw out implications. If you want to know what I mean by a statement I've made, ask , don't assume.
"As another example, take Newton's theory of gravity, which not only explained gravity well, but explained it to an extremely accurate degree that is supported by most experiments, yet was later disproven by Einstein. "
I'm sorry, may be I've been unaware all this time. Does gravity exist?
"It is evident that a phenomena's objectivity does not entail any objectivity of the explanation, a gap which PRO has failed to distinguish or justify. "
I'll say this again. I don't think it's the first time saying it. Science is used to explain natural physical world facts.
I like to know what you do not understand about that statement.
Where are you missing it?
"To be clear, I am not focusing on the hypothesis, but instead on the very nature of observation which the scientific method entails."
Very good and the observation of what?
What it is around us and what is that? That which is , not which isn't. Which isn't, isn't factual.
"A scientific theory about a phenomenon can never be proven to be true, but only strengthened through observations which match the theory."
First off, how do you know it can never be proven?
Second, science doesn't just stop at theories. If it did, you'd have a valid argument. But being that science takes us all the way through to the destination of conclusive facts, it hits the objective territory.
I want you to understand this. Science doesn't stop at theories but all the way to truth and science is that vehicle for transportation. It is that method of explanation of what is called the truth.
"Science has always been a battle of self-contradicting theories which progess through an almost Hegelian dialectic. Science is an iterative process which builds off itself to get closer to the explanations of the truth. It never claims to have found truth in the process, as to do so is the most insidious form of dogma imaginable, which I will expand on in my substantive. "
Ok well I see where you are coming from . Science in your understanding or world view is far from facts or even the way to explain facts, ok .
According to you, empirical data of facts, observation of the facts, experiments used to prove the facts have nothing to do with science.
"I have made it very clear from the outset of my case that a phenomenon is not the same as the science surrounding that phenomenon. That when I argue about incompleteness of a theory a gravity, I make no claim towards gravity itself, but instead about the theories which surround it. I bring up gravity especially, as despite PRO positing its theories to be so objective, it currently one of the most problematic, and most researched theories of modern physics (see, the search for a quantum theory of gravity). I have made it abundantly clear that an objective phenomena has nothing to do with objectivity of theory. So if PRO wants to argue instead that theories of gravity are objective, it have provided abundant sources to suggest that they are not. "
So after all this, does gravity exist?
"PRO has miscontrued the claim that science is not objective into the claim that science provides no use to humans at all.
Science does not need to provide an objective truth to be useful, but instead only needs to be accurate enough for humans to act to a practical degree. See the point about NASA sending rockets to the moon using disproven Newtonian theories of gravity, which PRO has conveniently ignored. "
If gravity exists, did those involved in NASA used that information to their cause of launching a space shuttle?
"PRO has attempted to strawman my case as one which rejects all facts and scientific progress. "
I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I think I was just lacking understanding from your side. But I believe now I got a handle on where you are coming from and I'll summarize at the end of this round.
"'What is science?' PRO has asked. Science is a collection of theories, all of which, at any moment, could be overturned by a better one. "
Ok so this is where the rubber meets the road. I'll get to that .
"Science is attempts at explaining objective phenomena, not the phenomona in itself. "
Seems like a non sequitur or you're poorly explaining to me anyway.
Science attempts, does it fail, sometimes fail , always fails, never fails ?
Ok, so aside from this last quoted statement from you, there is more consistency.
You say that science just explains theories. Which again , you say you don't just focus on hypothesis, but hypothesis and theories, all in one.
Another non sequitur you made about as it appears concerning facts and knowledge which I didn't see addressed.
It's like trying to straddle two horses but you get cautious and back peddle to theories to stay away from that objective side to science.
Anyway, I believe you hold the case that science is all theories, no facts in sight, not a thing to do with facts.
Ok just grant my side to see if it's consistent.
Let's say science and you acknowledge this, that science includes observation and empirical value of the facts.
According to that definition and nature, wouldn't it be valid to say science is objective, ultimately?
There's a definition barrier but just entertain that for the sake of this debate.
Forfeited
Round 4
Getting down to the heart of it, meat of it, center of it, the bottom line.
Science includes observation and empirical value of the facts. That's what I mean when using the term and talking about science.
According to that definition and nature, wouldn't it be valid to say science is objective, ultimately?
Yes or no .
Sorry about the forfeit I thought I published my argument but something must have happened.
Well here we go again.
1. Introduction
There has not been a definitional clash in this debate. Both sides have conceded and argued under the framework that observation is a part of science. Yet I had already responded to this in the my first argument about the fallacy of composition, and without any further reinforcement or justification PRO has simply restated their case.
2. Rebuttal
I. Argument from Latin Fallacies
The term 'non sequitur' is used to describe a set of reasoning fallacies where a conclusion does not logically follow from a set of given premises.
PRO, however, has attempted to label some of my statements as 'non sequitur' without explanation, an incongruence since statements cannot be 'non sequitur' by themselves, but only in relation to a set of premises given.
Ironically, non sequitur is the type of fallacy that science is guilty of if it asserts that observations can guarantee the objective truth of a scientific theory (see affirmation of the consequent)
II. Mischaracterisation
To argue that science is not objective is not to argue that it is 'far from the facts', but rather that it will never reach those facts.
3. Substantive
I. Theory-laden observations
Taking PRO at their best, even if somehow observations being objective somehow makes all of science objective, PRO stiill does not win their case as they have the burden to prove the statement that observations are fully objective.
Rather, observations are theory-laden, meaning that they can only be interpreted in light of scientific theories, which PRO has conceded are subjective.
Take the statement 'this apple is red'.
a. Measurement Issues
First off, one might say red is something that everyone sees and therefore objective. But then one would run issues such as:
- colour blindness
- speakers of certain languages being unable to distinguish red
And other such issues that come with attempting to call a qualitative measure objective.
One might seek to quantify this. Perhaps light ought to be defined in frequency of wavelength.
To measure wavelength though, means to measure distance. There is no absolute measure of distance as distance depends on the relative motion of an observer as proven by Einstein.
The same can be said for any other type of quantitative measurement.
Take for example the base S.I units of Kg, m and s which almost all measurements are based off.
Metres and seconds change according to a subject, through relativistic length contraction and time dilation.
Kilograms (mass) also change relatavistically in conservation of an object's energy.
b. Semantic theoretical influence
When an obseration is made in science, it is done with the aim of supporting/disproving previous or current theories. Such an observation begs the question , potentially skewing interpretation of observation.
Such a skewing of observation is even more prevelant in social sciences, especially around subjects such as politics and ethics. In these subjects, arguments often involve intuitional analogy that any observation can be forced into, to beg the question in favour of the proposer, hence the controversial nature of topics such as abortion.
4. Conclusion
PRO's case has centered largely around repetition of a few rhetorical questions such as 'does gravity exist?', which are continually brought up again despite CON's refutations of them being completely out of the scope of this debate (There is no avoiding the question, as such questions are irrelevant contextually, furthermore gravity's non-existence is not what my argument entails at all as I've made abundantly clear)
There has also been the fallacious anad preposterous claim that one small aspect of science being potentially objective (without reinforcement of said axiom) makes all of science objective. Even if this were the case, PRO has not proved the objectivity of observations, an act inherently centered in subjective observer.
PRO's position is untenable.
Round 5
You'll have to excuse me if I missed your "yes" or "no" answer.
I told you there was a bottle line to address.
You could of been short and sweet.
Both sides have said what they had to say without circulation being needed.
Science includes observation and empirical value of the facts. That's what I mean when using the term and talking about science.
According to that definition and nature, wouldn't it be valid to say science is objective, ultimately?
Yes or no .
Please answer yes or no to that. We can both be correct according to our respective places and leave it a draw. It's all good.
Thanks Mall...
Interpretation of the resolution
No burden of proof was set out in the definitions. In a 'common sense' debate such as this one, it can be reasonably assumed that most of the burden lies on behalf of CON. In this debate, however, PRO has hardly advanced a coherent case, and so has not fulfilled their burden of proof.
CON on the other hand has not only constructed a case, but also reinforced and added on to said case.
At the end of said debate, CON has advanced 5 points, none of which have been adequately responded to.
PRO's debate, on the other hand, has centered around one main point: that of science potentially including observations which could be objective.
CON has responded to this in multiple ways: how such reasoning engages in fallacy of composition, how there is a burden to prove why observations are objective etc.
PRO has only backed their case by repeating their point without any further reinforcement or argument.
Ultimately, the 1 point of PRO's does not stand, while the 5 points of CON have all been either unresponded too, or strawmanned in a manner that ignores the essence of the argument.
CON's case is also backed by numerous sources and philosophical literature, while PRO's is lacking in this regard. PRO has failed to fulfill their burden of proof by a substantial margin.
Also note that CON's theory ladenness in argument 4, means that even accepting PRO's weak burden of proof posited:
"According to that definition and nature, wouldn't it be valid to say science is objective, ultimately?"
The argument of theory-ladeness still is left unresponded to. If PRO's burden of proof was to prove that observations are objective, that has not been fulfilled.
Ultimately, PRO's case they have presented in this debate is both incoherent and untenable.
You guys are funny with your denial of many things.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
lol mall you're so funny
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, scientific truth is objective, confirmed by proof, and is — or at least, ideally should be. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, scientific truth is objective, confirmed by proof, and is — or at least, ideally should be — universally accepted.
I can observe an apple falling and do mathematical calculations on the weight x the gravity exerted on the apple to figure out the strength of gravity on the apple. It would be an objective fact that the apple moved at the strength x weight of the gravity exerted on it (if I did the maths right). As long as I don't extrapolate this scientific finding to other apples or falling things, I've discovered an objective fact about this said apple and its relationship to gravity. In this same sense, I can confirm it's an objective fact that hawking radiation exists as a real phenomenon in the black holes we observe.
That's exactly the point. Looking through a telescope and seeing a star would be synthetic a priori.
My point is that science falls outside of this scope. Looking through a telescope isn't the same as doing science, it's just making an observation. Just as how me looking at an apple and calling it red isn't science.
Maybe something like observing the light's wavelength and predicting the star's heat would be science. It is using that observation to formulate hypotheses, which are then tested through experiment. This is how the scientific method has always been.
And this is where induction comes into play. For example, from the data I gather from falling objects, I might theorise that objects accelerate the same under gravity regardless of weight. That method of conclusion forming is science. The act of observation is simply a facet of science.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I don't know what you should debate bones! follow your heart.
"scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole."
All knowledge about objective truth is either analytic a priori (a relation of ideas in an analytic manner) or synthetic a posteriori (observed matter of fact, such as ‘this apple is red’)
I dont think i understand. Me looking through a telescope and seeing a star would fulfill the criteria of synthetic a posterori (observed matter of fact), would it not?
It was already similar to mine anways.
I don't think I'm being nitpicky. Science does not tell us that black holes exist. The scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole.
Science does not let us know that at least one black hole exists. That is observation. Science is the systematic incorporation of observations to make models and predictions, as I outline in my case.
I'm not sure about a topic yet, do you have any suggestions?
Come on now he's not quite there yet ;)
I see, well good luck. I'm unsure how you can copy someone else's entire writing style, i personally don't think i can do that.
I've learnt how nitpicky I find debates like these. "Science is not objective because it's based on induction." It only takes us to study one black hole to know black holes exist. Regardless of whether others exist or not, Science lets us know that it is an objective fact that at least one black hole exists through the observation of one. It really just depends on how nitpicky we want to be.
What do you plan debating bones on?
Not Bones, but his friend. I copied his style because I normally debate verbally, not online. Rest assured I will be developing my own idiosyncratic style before I challenge Bones.
definetly bones on an alt account. Your writing style, structure, everything is the exact same.
LMAO
Ill accept if you make voting one week