Instigator / Pro
8
1480
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

SCIENCE IS NOT OBJECTIVE

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

seldiora
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 1,418 / 5,000

The debate resolution is "Science is not objective."

This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376

Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.

Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.

First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments.

Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.

Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.

Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.

If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.

Round 1
Pro
(1) Introduction and rules
Thank you for participating in this debate. I will be arguing in favor of the debate resolution, "Science is not objective."

This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent. 
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.
First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for opening arguments and definitions.
Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.
Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.
Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.
If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.

Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.

(2) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]

(3) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."

(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).

(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).

The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).

(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".

(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.

"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]

Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".

"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.

In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.

"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]

"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]

The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.

(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,

"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]

"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]

The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.

One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.

But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.

They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.

(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.


Con
I award pro 1 point.

Pro makes good ideas about how people must observe the majority of scientific experiments and make ideas about conclusions. However, I would argue that the nature of science itself transcends our mere thought. For example, 1,000 years ago, we lacked enough effort in science to truly know whether the earth had Sun rotating around it or not. So in terms of our scientific thought, we believed that earth was in the center. However, the scientific truth was that Earth rotated around the Sun rather than the other way around. Our personal interpretation of science differs in stark contrast to the true ideals of what science precisely is. 

Let me give you an example. Say we had a perfectly balanced coin on both sides with no bias towards either. We conduct a scientific experiment and postulate that it will resemble very close to 50% chance because that is how we designed the coin. If our result was close, with thousands of trials conducted and no outside forces enacted, it's clear to see that the perfectly balanced coin was designed extremely well. Now let's say we had very very bad luck, and it somehow landed 100 heads in a row. This is a miracle. It's near impossible. But as scientists analyze the result, they realize that 100 heads in a row is just as likely as exactly 50 heads and 50 tails, or the perfect 50% result. They would continue doing more testing and see if anything has biased the result (perhaps some kind of magnetic field, gravitational force, etc.). The human interpretation is just merely the explanation for why the events happened the way they did. The science of how balanced the coin is, is objective, because the coin has a certain level which it can be balanced at. Even a baby could flip the coin over and perhaps recognize heads and tails if they were designed to attract attention from a baby. Even animals with lesser intelligence may be able to recognize this idea. And there needs not to be recognition for something to occur either. If we are not actually there to observe the coin fall to the ground, it will still fall to the ground, and it will still either be heads or tails, even if scientists say they changed their mind and maybe the coin was vaporized by some completely unexplainable event. If Science was subjective, then the coin's results would only depend on what scientists interpret and it wouldn't matter if it actually landed heads or tails. The purpose of science is to get rid of personal bias and false interpretations of events that occur. If I take exactly one step, that is scientifically one step, scientists cannot call it 1,000 steps or 0 steps and declare it the truth. No one will agree with the scientists. The result must be able to be produced time and time again. As such, it is clear from events that actually occur, that science is objective rather than subjective.
Round 2
Pro
I award CON 1 point for participation.
I also award CON 1 point for their insightful analysis.

(P.R2.01) ROUND TWO

Since CON has responded in a more conversational style, I will address their points similarly.

(P.R2.01A) SCIENCE

However, I would argue that the nature of science itself transcends our mere thought.
(IFF) logic is the foundation of the scientific method (THEN) it is impossible for "science" to "transcend" human thought

(P.R2.01B) THE SUN

For example, 1,000 years ago, we lacked enough effort in science to truly know whether the earth had Sun rotating around it or not. So in terms of our scientific thought, we believed that earth was in the center. However, the scientific truth was that Earth rotated around the Sun rather than the other way around. Our personal interpretation of science differs in stark contrast to the true ideals of what science precisely is. 
This is actually a perfect example.  It is a common misunderstanding that the heliocentric model is an "objective" "fact".  However, this is not actually the case.  The geocentric model of the solar system is just as valid as the heliocentric model.  Einstein actually makes this clear by explaining that all motion is relative to the observer (subjective)(sj.1).  Now, the heliocentric model is a lot easier to explain and visualize, and because of this, it seems to have enhanced utility.  But it's important not to conflate utility with "objective" "fact".  For example, some might prefer the geocentric model because of its complexity and superior aesthetics.

(P.R2.01C) THE COIN FLIP

Let me give you an example. Say we had a perfectly balanced coin on both sides with no bias towards either. We conduct a scientific experiment and postulate that it will resemble very close to 50% chance because that is how we designed the coin. If our result was close, with thousands of trials conducted and no outside forces enacted, it's clear to see that the perfectly balanced coin was designed extremely well. Now let's say we had very very bad luck, and it somehow landed 100 heads in a row.
The key variable that often gets neglected in these types of experiments is, "who initiated this study and why do they think this is important data"?

This is a miracle. It's near impossible.
I'd say, "statistically very unlikely, but certainly within the realm of the possible".

But as scientists analyze the result, they realize that 100 heads in a row is just as likely as exactly 50 heads and 50 tails, or the perfect 50% result.
They probably could have figured this out with some statistical analysis.

They would continue doing more testing and see if anything has biased the result (perhaps some kind of magnetic field, gravitational force, etc.). The human interpretation is just merely the explanation for why the events happened the way they did.
When you say "interpretation" are you referring to the value-judgement "statistically very unlikely" and or "unpredictable"?

The science of how balanced the coin is, is objective, because the coin has a certain level which it can be balanced at.
What you're referring to is a REAL-TRUE-FACT.  Anything that can be empirically demonstrated and or shown to be logically necessary is a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

And you'd tend to think a REAL-TRUE-FACT is the same as "objective", but unfortunately it's no such thing.

The concepts of "coin" and "balanced" are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable, but they are NOT independent of a human mind.

In fact, it's technically impossible to even imagine something that could be considered "independent of a human mind".

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

CON's example continued,

Even a baby could flip the coin over and perhaps recognize heads and tails if they were designed to attract attention from a baby. Even animals with lesser intelligence may be able to recognize this idea.
Yes.  If multiple minds perceive an event identically (within explicit parameters), that event qualifies as "empirically demonstrable" (REAL-TRUE-FACT).

However, it's worth pointing out that the MEANINGFULNESS perceived by the baby and the MEANINGFULNESS perceived by the animal is likely to diverge significantly from the MEANINGFULNESS perceived by the scientist (for the "same" event).

(P.R2.01D) QUANTUM ERASER

And there needs not to be recognition for something to occur either.
Actually, there must be an observer.  Empirical demonstration is impossible without observation. [01]

If we are not actually there to observe the coin fall to the ground, it will still fall to the ground, and it will still either be heads or tails, even if scientists say they changed their mind and maybe the coin was vaporized by some completely unexplainable event.
An unobserved coin-flip (coin in a box) exists in a super-state (simultaneously both heads & tails & edge) and only becomes "real" at the moment of perception. [02]

This was a very hotly debated interpretation in 1935 but is generally accepted as a logical necessity today. [03]

(P.R2.01E) PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE

If Science was subjective, then the coin's results would only depend on what scientists interpret and it wouldn't matter if it actually landed heads or tails.
The scientific method is inter-subjective.  It is implemented differently by different teams of scientists and MUST be verified by other teams of scientists.

Specifically in the example you posit, a presumably perfect coin lands on the same side after 100 presumably random flips.

This "result" would not qualify as empirically verifiable.  Who would verify it?  How would anyone verify it?

This "result" would not be replicable by a peer-review team and could not be considered REAL-TRUE-FACT.

Here's how the scientific method works.

I say, "hey you skeptics, we got 100 heads flips in a row".

My peer-review team says, "send us over the specs for your coin and your flipping mechanism and your laboratory and monitoring equipment and we'll see if we can replicate your result".

If they are unable to replicate your result (which seems likely), then your experimental data and any conclusions you may have based on that data ARE TRASHED.

It's labeled as "bad science" and treated as "unreliable" (functionally indistinguishable from false).

You might not have been "lying" but you will be treated as if you were.

The purpose of science is to get rid of personal bias and false interpretations of events that occur.
Almost.  Science can only detect differences in personal bias, it cannot detect a bias that is shared by BOTH the original team and the peer-review team.

Science is a data collection and verification schema.

It does nothing to eliminate sample-bias.

It does nothing to eliminate motivation-bias.

And most importantly, it does nothing to eliminate CONCLUSION bias (AXIOLOGY).

If I take exactly one step, that is scientifically one step, scientists cannot call it 1,000 steps or 0 steps and declare it the truth.
Your "step" is unique to you (purely subjective).

Your "step" is not a reliable and rigorous unit of measurement.

Any data you gather based on your "step" will be extremely unlikely to pass peer-review (unless your peer-review team happens to be your identical twin).

No one will agree with the scientists. The result must be able to be produced time and time again.
Yes, and hopefully not exclusively by other teams who are (implicitly) biased in similar ways.

(P.R2.02) SHOCKING CONCLUSIONS

As such, it is clear from events that actually occur, that science is objective rather than subjective.
Science is an inter-subjective analysis of and verification of REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

The facts are inevitably sample-biased, the motivations of the scientists are inevitably swayed by their emotions, and "scientific conclusions" are inevitably 100% OPINION (because you can never use pure logic to derive an "ought" from an "is"). [04]


Con
I award pro two points for bringing up a good counter-argument.

I will stand by my original idea and extrapolate a scenario that can prove science is objective, not based on mere thought. He had brought up to attention that even the most trusted studies are backed by only humans. I will note that he failed to refute that even other animals can understand a coin's heads and tails. I will extend this further. It has been known with the Chinese Room  Thought Experiment (CRTE) that Machines are merely processing tasks, not truly understanding anything.  Let me explain.

In the CRTE, a man who does not know Chinese merely follows instructions to output a result matching an input. But he is not truly thinking at all. He does not understand Chinese. Even if the experiment was to scientifically "prove" if he actually knew Chinese or not, on the surface, we could not tell the difference of a native Chinese speaker and his actual self. However, the lack of information here does not mean science is subjective. It just means our findings were insufficient. If we were to truly investigate the background of this man, we would find that he is, in fact, not Chinese. And when this man's own "scientific rigor" is put to the test, we find that he does not know Science either: he is just matching input to output. 

As an extension, a machine, which merely outputs words and letters, can nevertheless verify the truth of things. For example, Wolframalpha and various calculators can tell us the formula for gravity, through countless experiments and extrapolating data based on neural network. It is difficult to say for sure if this is "thought", as machines cannot match our creativity and have not passed for human during the turing test. As such, the machine is less likely to emulate actual "thought" and far closer to cold heart metal Truth. While our scientific results seem to be our passed down facts and opinions, other stronger sources can verify the objectivity of science. 

Let me repeat that, if science was truly subjective, then merely our thoughts would change the truth. But our thoughts have only changed our thoughts. What we have discovered, truly happened, regardless of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In fact, if science was based on mere opinion, then I could hand wave away Con's entire argument. I could say, you think science is based on everyone's opinion? That, whatever everyone thinks science is, becomes science? Then I could easily say "con's argument is not science", and invalidate his argument. I could even say "Einstein's theory makes no sense and is garbage", throwing it away.

Finally, con has failed to tackle the ideals of science to get to the truth of the matter and reduce personal feelings and thoughts. The only way he can win is to prove that even the most perfect machines, brainless and merely analyzing patterns, cannot emulate science. Because if something can prove science without using a real "brain", then science is objective.
Round 3
Pro
I award CON 2 points for their insightful analysis.

(P.R3.01) ROUND THREE - FINAL ROUND

Since CON has responded in a more conversational style, I will address their points similarly.

(P.R3.01A) SCIENCE WITHOUT THOUGHT

I will stand by my original idea and extrapolate a scenario that can prove science is objective, not based on mere thought.
Without thought, there can be no science.  Science is a specific set of procedures that can only be identified and validated through human thought.

(P.R3.01B) THE ANIMAL SCIENTIST

He had brought up to attention that even the most trusted studies are backed by only humans. I will note that he failed to refute that even other animals can understand a coin's heads and tails.
The critical distinction between a human observation of a coin-flip and an animal observation of a coin-flip is the perceived meaning of that coin-flip.

The perceived meaning of events is paramount. 

There are trillions of tiny (factual) details your brain filters out routinely because you don't think they're significant (to you personally).

(P.R3.01C) THE CHINESE ROOM

I will extend this further. It has been known with the Chinese Room  Thought Experiment (CRTE) that Machines are merely processing tasks, not truly understanding anything.  Let me explain.
The point that is often overlooked here is that the hypothetical Chinese Room was designed by and built by and operated by and validated by a human.

Any "error" the machine might produce is not a "machine error" but rather a second-order human error.

And by the same token, any "correct" result the machine might produce is not a "machine success" but rather a second-order human success. 

In the CRTE, a man who does not know Chinese merely follows instructions to output a result matching an input. But he is not truly thinking at all. He does not understand Chinese. Even if the experiment was to scientifically "prove" if he actually knew Chinese or not, on the surface, we could not tell the difference of a native Chinese speaker and his actual self.
This is actually a perfect example of subjective meaning.  You've laid out some hypothetical "facts" and you seem to believe the implications of these "facts" are obvious (namely that automated functions are properly "objective").

We agree on the hypothetical "facts" but we disagree about the conclusions (meaning) that can be drawn from these "facts".

(P.R3.01D) THE CHINESE ROOM = SECOND ORDER HUMAN ERROR

However, the lack of information here does not mean science is subjective.
The operator of the room may or may not "know" Chinese (the knowledge of the operator is actually immaterial, they would act exactly the same, as long as they were able to follow the instructions provided to them, whether they knew Chinese or not).  This type of "Turing test" is inconclusive based on the parameters of the hypothetical.  The only "conclusion" we can properly draw from the perspective of a non-native Chinese speaker who must, presumably use a reference book to verify the results (presumably the same reference book used to create the test) is that we are unable to distinguish the operator from a native Chinese speaker. 

However, if the test was conducted by a truly native Chinese speaker, they would very likely be able to detect grammatical errors and strangely literal translations of idioms which might indicate that the operator of the room (or more precisely, the operation of the room itself) was NOT indistinguishable from a native Chinese speaker.

The true "problem" with the Chinese Room validation is the method of validation

Using the same reference material to verify the test that was used to create the test itself falls victim to circular-logic.

(P.R3.01E) THE CHINESE ROOM AND EPISTEMOLOGY

It just means our findings were insufficient. If we were to truly investigate the background of this man, we would find that he is, in fact, not Chinese. And when this man's own "scientific rigor" is put to the test, we find that he does not know Science either: he is just matching input to output. 
It is my understanding that one of the crucial aspects of the CRTE is that we CAN'T investigate what's inside the room.

It is a demonstration of epistemological limits.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Also, it's worth noting that the operator of the room is not conducting science.  In-fact, their function could be fully automated. 

The "scientist" is the person validating the room from outside the room.

(P.R3.01F) AUTOMATED MACHINE BIAS = HUMAN DESIGNER BIAS + HUMAN VALIDATION BIAS

As an extension, a machine, which merely outputs words and letters, can nevertheless verify the truth of things.
A machine is unable to validate itself.

A machine can never verify the meaningfulness of things (facts).

For example, Wolframalpha and various calculators can tell us the formula for gravity, through countless experiments and extrapolating data based on neural network. It is difficult to say for sure if this is "thought", as machines cannot match our creativity and have not passed for human during the turing test. As such, the machine is less likely to emulate actual "thought" and far closer to cold heart metal Truth. While our scientific results seem to be our passed down facts and opinions, other stronger sources can verify the objectivity of science. 
A machine is unable to validate itself.

A machine can never verify the meaningfulness of things (facts).

(P.R3.01G) CONFLATING FACTS AND OPINIONS

Let me repeat that, if science was truly subjective, then merely our thoughts would change the truth.
Science can only validate demonstrable empirical facts.

Our thoughts do not change facts, but our thoughts DO change which facts we decide to validate and our thoughts DO change our CONCLUSIONS.

For example, scientific research conducted by a corporation will look for POSITIVE effects associated with their products.

The research itself may be 100% technically and purely scientific, but their MOTIVE is sample biased.

Also, iff any negative effects are discovered, they are extremely unlikely to be published (more sample bias, aka survival bias, aka attention bias).

(P.R3.01H) THOUGHTS ABOUT THOUGHTS

But our thoughts have only changed our thoughts.
I wish the facts could "speak for themselves" but that is not the case.

All empirical evidence can be interpreted differently by different observers.

All data is sample biased.

All scientific research is motivated (sample biased).

All scientific conclusions are 100% pure opinion.

It is impossible to get an "OUGHT" from an "IS" (Hume's Guillotine). [01]

What we have discovered, truly happened, regardless of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
What happened is always relative to the observer.

How important that specific event or fact might be is also always relative to the observer.

In fact, if science was based on mere opinion, then I could hand wave away Con's entire argument.
That's exactly what you're doing.

I could say, you think science is based on everyone's opinion? That, whatever everyone thinks science is, becomes science? Then I could easily say "con's argument is not science", and invalidate his argument.
My argument itself is not science.

My argument is a subjective opinion.

It's also worth mentioning that your argument is also not science.

Your argument is also a subjective opinion.

These are statements of fact.

I could even say "Einstein's theory makes no sense and is garbage", throwing it away.
A lot of people do think relativity makes no sense and is garbage. 

This is also not science (it's an opinion).

(P.R3.02) SHOCKING CONCLUSIONS

Finally, PRO has failed to tackle the ideals of science to get to the truth of the matter and reduce personal feelings and thoughts.
I have very carefully tried to explain that science is an inter-subjective data verification method that applies exclusively and explicitly to empirically demonstrable facts (no opinions allowed).

Iff scientific best practices are followed, we are more-likely to distill reliable data, but that data is still 100% sample biased (not objective).

And most importantly, the conclusions and decisions based on that data are NOT science.

Conclusions, even conclusions made by scientists, are always OPINIONS.

The only way he can win is to prove that even the most perfect machines, brainless and merely analyzing patterns, cannot emulate science. Because if something can prove science without using a real "brain", then science is objective.
Any machine, no matter how jaw-droppingly amazing is always going to be a victim of HUMAN DESIGNER BIAS + HUMAN VALIDATION BIAS.

It is impossible to get an "OUGHT" from an "IS" (Hume's Guillotine). [01]

In conclusion, I would once again like to thank CON for their stimulating participation in this important debate.

I have learned a lot from this conversation and look forward to our next encounter.
Con
I award 1 point to pro.

I will refute pro's ideas succinctly. I understand where he is coming from, on the surface, Science has only resulted in conjectures that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. There is nothing in this world that can be known with 100% certainty except for philosophical axioms and definitions. However, this does not mean that those events that occurred beyond reasonable doubt cannot have a universal agreement that does not depend on our personal thought. There is a famous thought experiment called Laplace's Demon. He who is able to predict the movement of each particle, the mass, the velocity, the acceleration, combined together, will be basically an omniscient being without any bias, able to understand and predict exactly what is going to occur. Regardless of personal feelings, he will be able to recognize in his own demon language, certain concepts and ideas. For example, "red" may be "Rahoi" to the demon. "Gravity" might be "Feloga" to the demon. Regardless of his interpretations, he can recognize these forces and ideas exist, regardless if F=MA or F=-MA. This is the theoretical end goal of science, to grasp how these ideas work. We don't know if it's possible. Nobody has been able to achieve Laplace's Demon, but until we are disproved, the facts we obtain are the closest understanding to the universe we have. Pro says we cannot make generalizations because we are not Laplace's Demon. But through specification we can find ways to gradually build up to Laplace's Demon. Observation is necessary to conduct the scientific thought, but our human limitations are complemented by other animals, chaotic events that allow insane breakthroughs, and new weaknesses found in our theories. We know that "gravity" as an idea, exists in some shape or form, self-evident from the way we are standing on Earth right now. We are aware that stars exist in the sky, the very sun observable to the naked eye. Even simple existence of objects are the basis of science. Otherwise we cannot guess at the distance of the sun, the formula for gravity, so on and so forth. The specifics may be wrong, but science is definitely objective overall.
Round 4
Pro
(P.R4.01) POINTS ASSIGNMENT & TALLY

The vote totals stand at 4 points for PRO and 4 points for CON.

I would like to award CON 2 additional points for tenacity.

This gives CON a total of 6 points versus PRO with only 4 points.

CON please validate these totals to conclude the debate.
Con
Yes. Thanks for the debate.