Instigator / Pro
0
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
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
Winner
0
1

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.

You guys are funny with your denial of many things.

-->
@ossa_997

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.

-->
@ossa_997

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Bones
@ossa_997

"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?

-->
@Ehyeh

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

Come on now he's not quite there yet ;)

-->
@ossa_997

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Bones
@ossa_997

definetly bones on an alt account. Your writing style, structure, everything is the exact same.

LMAO

-->
@Mall

Ill accept if you make voting one week