'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.
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.