Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything.

In this post, I'll defend induction and measurement against my opponent's objections.InductionMy opponent simply has not addressed my argument on this point, not even in passing. Doubting the ability of induction or science to provide proofs is self refuting, because all knowledge is based on induction at bottom, so anyone who argues against induction must admit that his own position is unproven.My opponent's did not object to this argument - he actually said "I agree." He did give an example of an inductive claim that turned out to be mistaken and cite a scientist who agrees with him that induction cannot prove anything, but if he agrees that it is self refuting to doubt induction's ability to provide proof then those points are irrelevant.Still, I will briefly comment on his example and his appeal to authority.My opponent puts forward the example of believing that the earth was flat. The problem with this argument is that it was never scientifically established that the earth was flat, that was just part of a pre-rational unscientific worldview that included all sorts of other superstitions. As soon as the ancient Greeks discovered science, they figured out that the earth was round, which Aristotle himself argued, contrary to my opponent's misinformed claim.Scientific claims can be refined by further research, but these aren't huge, random lurches, they just fill in the gaps in what we already knew. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are completely consistent with Newton's earlier discoveries in physics, although they apply to different scales. Knowledge builds on knowledge.As for my opponent's authority, the scientist he cites doesn't really argue for the claim that induction can't prove things, he just assumes that all proof has to be like proof in formal logic, which is an arbitrary assertion. Anyone who seriously studies the case for evolution or Newton's laws can see that these theories have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.To be fair, there are some scientists who accept my opponent's position about induction, but that is due to the influence of Karl Popper's philosophy of science, which is seriously deficient.MeasurementMy opponent criticizes me for "not quoting my source fully," implying that I was disingenuously concealing other things that my source said.No, I just didn't want to quote ten paragraphs of text that aren't relevant to the discussion. I quoted the definition, which was the part of the source that was relevant. Next time you quote someone, you had better quote the entire article or book you are quoting from, lest you "not quote your source fully!"My opponent then goes on at length about how there is no concrete standard for measuring emotions and how I allegedly contradicted my source. No.The standard of measurement for emotions is ordinal, as I said, which means comparative measurement. The concrete standard for one emotion is just another emotion, as in "Bob is happier than Sue." An emotion involves abstract ideas, but it is itself a concrete mental entity.My opponent claims that I contradicted my source by claiming that there is a spectrum of emotions, while my source claims that emotions are measured by reference to a person's hierarchy of values. No, they are the same claim. The relevance of a fact to a person's hierarchy of values creates a spectrum, ranging from very relevant to not relevant. Strong emotions occur at the top, and weaker emotions at the bottom. There is no contradiction here.Science and EmotionsMy opponent claims that I have "offered no definite, concrete measurement by which I can say that the pleasure I receive while eating a cheeseburger makes one happier than, say, my friend eating a cheeseburger."No, I discussed this at length in my last post. The definite, concrete standard for one emotion is another emotion, compared by reference to a person's hierarchy of values. This is how ordinal, comparative measurement works. I went over my definition of measurement, what ordinal measurement is, and how ordinal measurement applies to the intensity of happiness at length in my previous post.Science and MoralityMy opponent objects to my definition of morality on the grounds that it implies that he would not be able to predict what would happen if he stole a purse, and thus certain situations could not be evaluated scientifically.This is an advanced issue in Objectivist ethics, so I can't go into all the details, but the essential reason why you cannot predict what will happen after stealing a purse scientifically is that you have violated a moral principle by stealing the purse.If you violate a moral principle, there is no objective way of making your subsequent decisions. You can only guess, moment by moment, what course of action will be best for you to take to avoid detection. The facts will be against you, because you did steal the purse, and if that is ever brought to light you will be arrested. Your only hope is to rely on the incompetence, weakness, and ignorance of the police and the people around you. You might get away with it, of course, but you don't know that you will.In cases where someone is acting morally, moral principles do serve as a reliable guide. Morality can tell you that living an honest, productive life is a reliable way to become happy, for example.Science and Social SystemsMy opponent asks how I can demonstrate scientifically that people have rights, and by what criterion. The demonstration is simply that rights respecting nations do better by nearly any rational criterion than dictatorships, whether productivity, quality of life, number of concentration camps, etc.For details, see the histories of the United States, Nazi Germany, Iran, and Soviet Russia. The rights respecting countries do better in the long run than the rights violating countries.ConclusionThere were essentially five points at issue in this debate, so I will address each of those in turn.1. Can induction provide proof? I showed that doubting induction's ability to provide proof is self refuting, and my opponent agreed with my argument. I have also refuted each of my opponent's objections to induction in this post.2. Is everything measurable?My opponent did not address my argument in my previous post, based on the law of identity, that everything that exists must be measurable. Therefore, this argument flows through.3. Are the emotions measurable?I argued that happiness can be measured using ordinal measurement based on our hierarchy of values in my previous speech. My opponent has not directly addressed this argument or shown that he understands it.4. Is morality measurable?I provided an objective standard for measuring the morality of an action in my previous speech. My opponent objected based on the fact that we can't know for sure what will happen if we steal a purse, which I argued in this speech is a special case resulting from seriously violating a moral principle. If we are moral, morality can provide reliable, scientific guidance.5. Can science prove political claims?I have argued that the data of history provides strong evidence that we can use to prove political claims, like the fact that we have rights. Countries that respect rights are generally successful, and countries that do not generally are not.Thank you.