Anulling Science

[Kyrisch]

Science is the gathering of facts, facts by definition can be proven, true proof implies the absence of doubt, but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience. Omniscience is a scientific impossibility, therefore fact is a scientific impossibility, therefore science itself is scientifically impossible... By the use of science, I have proven the absence of science...

 

My friend wrote this. He is deeply religious. How do you think I should debate him? I've already answered back, this:

A fact is a statement that can be proven. One statement cannot encompass everything there is to know (ominiscience), therefore science can only be omniscient when it has proven and infinite number of statements. Also, just because a fact is supported by some evidence, doesn't mean the fact is right.

 

For example: "The moon makes its own light, just like the sun." This can be proven by the observation of looking at the moon at night, when "there is no sun". Further research has disproved this; the moon is not a star, the sun is not "gone" at night, etc. Science is actually uncertain in nature, although it tries to be omniscient.

He has yet to respond.

[Glider]

Personally, I wouldn't bother. You're unlikely to change his beliefs and he won't change yours, so what's the point? Go and have a beer.

[Kyrisch]

Beers both look and taste like horse piss.

[JPQuiceno]

My friend wrote this. He is deeply religious. How do you think I should debate him? I've already answered back' date=' this:

 

He has yet to respond.[/quote']

 

 

He is just using fancy wordplay to make it seem like he is correct, but in fact, his statement is completley contradictory, and in return, makes his statement scientifically impossible.

 

Let me show you how.

 

First, science is not the gathering of facts, but using the scientific method to make observations and use the one that fits best as the best possible explanation of the phenomenon.

 

A fact is something that has been proven, you are correct.

 

But he states that "but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience. ". That is not true. Scientist do not go around saying "Well, we know that gravity affects everything, but, since we are not present in every corner of the universe, we don't know if there is a place were it is not affected by gravity, and there are monkies dancing without gravity causing any effects on their movement." We only know WHAT we know. That is what we make conclusions from. The theory of gravity has been shown to work in every instance, and therefore is true.

 

The same thing goes for reality. How do you know we are not living in a dream? We'll, we can never really know if this is a dream or not, but all we know is that together as humans we agree on chornological events and certain things, bringing us to agree on that this is a reality, nothing more, or nothing less.

 

He is using an old creationist tactic, which scientist know as "the god of the gaps". They try and say "since science doesn't know everything, you can't say that god doesnt exist".

 

Again I say, from our observations, we have known that a christian god, does not exist.

 

I hope this helped.

[timo]

Science is the gathering of facts, ...

Perphaps. But I somehow don´t like to see my work reduced to that.

 

... facts by definition can be proven, ...

Consider it a fact that I disagree with this statement. Now, by definition, you can prove this. How?

 

... true proof implies the absence of doubt ...

sounds like "true proof" is smiliar to true belief.

 

, but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience. Omniscience is a scientific impossibility, ...

I don´t understand that part. What´s "omniscience" ?

 

... therefore fact is a scientific impossibility, ...

I don´t understand that, either

 

... therefore science itself is scientifically impossible...

I think he wanted to say something like "scientific claims contradict themselves". If not, that statement is utter nonsense.

 

By the use of science, I have proven the absence of science...

It´s certainly not a "true proof" since I doubt it

[ydoaPs]

Beers both look and taste like horse piss.

how do you know what piss tastes like?

[swansont]

Something like:

 

Science is inductive, precisely because it is not omniscient. Deal with it already.

[AL]

Science is the gathering of facts, facts by definition can be proven, true proof implies the absence of doubt, but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience.

He's falsely equivocating his different usage of the terms "fact" and "proof." Science makes inductive inferences that can be regarded as factual knowledge, but provisionally and subject to the availability of new information. When he later states that these facts must have "true proof" and "the absence of doubt," he has pulled a sleight of hand in swapping out inductive for deductive inferences. The rest of his argument falls apart accordingly.

 

Omniscience is a scientific impossibility, therefore fact is a scientific impossibility, therefore science itself is scientifically impossible...

You'd be hard-pressed to make the case that all knowledge should be denied if we cannot have omniscience, since even the claim "all knowledge is impossible" is itself a knowledge claim.

 

By the use of science, I have proven the absence of science...

Well, he didn't really use science to disprove science at all, but if he actually did, then his proof is undermined by his own admission via the stolen concept fallacy.

[Glider]

Beers both look and taste like horse piss.

Then drink something else.

[In My Memory]

SwansonT,

 

Something like:

 

Science is inductive' date=' precisely because it is not omniscient. Deal with it already.[/quote']

As much as that is the perfect way to respond, your garden-variety apologist wont understand it.

 

 

Kyrisch,

 

Odds are, your friend has double-standards. He might deny scientific conclusions on the strawman basis that it isnt omniscient, but then again I wonder how many things he holds to be absolutely true without being omniscient himself. Or, perhaps, if your friend believes his own words so much, he should look everywhere in the universe (or at least anywhere on philosophy and religion websites) for rebuttals to his comment before actually considering it true in the first place.

 

Tell you friend that omniscience isnt a prerequisite to reasonably call something a fact or true - lots of perfectly rational and justified beliefs fall well-short of undeniable certainty. If you make a claim that is verified, how do you call it anything but a fact?

[-Demosthenes-]

Then drink something else.

Chocolate Milk happens to be my favorite.

[swansont]

SwansonT' date='

 

 

As much as that is the perfect way to respond, your garden-variety apologist wont understand it.

[/quote']

 

Yes, I realize that. Most garden-variety apologists unfortunately have vegetable matter between their ears.

[Glider]

Science is the gathering of facts, facts by definition can be proven, true proof implies the absence of doubt, but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience. Omniscience is a scientific impossibility, therefore fact is a scientific impossibility, therefore science itself is scientifically impossible... By the use of science, I have proven the absence of science...

His last sentence shows your problem in arguing with your friend. You can't argue 'science' sensibly with a person who does not understand science. Science cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing.

 

The function of science is only to explain. We observe phenomena and try to explain them. Science doesn't create anything, nor does it try to prove anything (because it's usually not possible). We test hypotheses and either accept them (which doesn't mean they've been proven, just that they haven't been disproven), or reject them, which means they've been disproven.

 

Facts cannot be proven, we can only continue to accept the hypothesis; i.e. generate more evidence in support of it. That doesn't 'prove' it, that just makes it acceptable. Therefore there really is no such thing as the absence of doubt and scientists accept that.

 

If you take a 'fact' such as gravity, then you must know that gravity itself is not a function of science. The effects of gravity are simply observable phenomena and the function of science is to try to explain these effects through a formalised process of hypothesis testing. Science is not a 'thing', it is a method.

 

Scientific method is set up to disprove. To test a hypothesis means to try to disprove it. Hypotheses by definition are just refutable statements. Statements such as "There is no God" for example, are not refutable and therefore not testable. You cannot test for the nonexistence of a thing using scientific method, so science cannot 'prove' its own nonexistence.