SCIENCE IS NOT OBJECTIVE

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.

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, PRO 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.