Science Is Dead

I hope it is extremely clear that pro has not upheld the BoP, or affirmed the resolution. Per the definitions I put forth in the opening, which pro has not displayed any dissatisfaction with, pro has not established that science is dead. Pro seems to believe that words just have one meaning, this is demonstrably false. The word "article" has one meaning in linguistics, and another in everyday use. Linguistics:"A word used alongside a noun to indicate the type of reference being made by the noun. "Everyday:"A piece of writing about a particular subject that is included in a magazine, newspaper, etc. "Which definition is right? Both of them are, however it depends on in what context one is using the word. Regarding theory, in science, the word is not used to denote something yet to be proved, it is used to denote an idea which has substantial evidence for it. Pro says:"Tests and observations prove that an idea is false - and you say, "That's OK because it's only a Theory. "If an idea is proved false, it's no longer viable, and scientists throw out the window. We also hear pro saying that scientists save theories by postulating other theories. He has not provided one example of this. I don't even know how one would go about retroactively substantiating theories through other theories, which of themselves need substantiation. This is utterly incoherent. If theory X fails in explaining phenomena Z, theory Y is put forth, not to retroactively prove X, because in many cases X and Y are mutually exclusive in explaining phenomena Z. Pro says:"I asked Con to name any invention or discovery that HAS made a significant difference in humanity since 1972. "This is to erroneously shift the BoP. It is pros job to provide reasons for why science is dead. Also, this is to shift the goalposts, because per the previously established definitions, we are not discussing "significant differences in humanity", we are discussing advances in science, which I have provided many examples of. Pro seems to be convinced that in order for science to make progress, it has to create some new field. Science is a process that builds off prior knowledge in order to investigate phenomena, and produce new information. So when pro says any phenomena X has already been discovered, yes that it is exactly the point, science takes this prior discovery makes more progress on it. pro says "Gene modification has been MAKING significant progress,they WOULD be viable for human transplant"Yes, we have been making significant progress, and we are continuing to, and continuing to do something is the opposite of being dead. Would, in this context, denotes that non-human organs that would otherwise not be viable, WOULD be viable for human transplant. Pro says:"Again, What's new here? Scientists or Blood Tests? The technology you infer but don't mention is antibody-based matrix and it's been around for a long time. "Once again, continuing to advance pre existing technologies, and building off of prior knowledge is what science does. Furthermore, continued progress is the opposite of what one would expect to see if science was dead. Pro says:"And once again, this has absolutely no impact on humanity. These species have existed all along. Do you really think these species weren't here in 1972? - Fail"This is to miss the point, this discovery has profound implications on evolutionary biology, zoology and so forth. The new knowledge of these species is significant. It doesn't matter if this discovery has a huge impact on humanity, because it's an advancement that science has made. I'm not going to waste my time and respond to all of these critiques, because the principle is still the same, pro has utterly missed the point. Conclusions: Pro fails to understand that words have different meanings in different context. Science doesn't have to generate some new field in order to make progress, nor do scientific discoveries have to significantly affect humanity in order to make progress. Theoretical physics has no bearing on humanity, however theoretical physics is anything but dead. Science builds off prior technology and knowledge and further develops these. I have provided many examples of new discoveries in science, and in the example of blood-detection of cancer, who cares if it's preexistent, the further development of this technology will undoubtedly have a significant on humanity. Science is not dead, it's alive and well, and if any one of my examples of recent scientific developments are infact valid, then this alone necessitates a con vote.