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

This debate is very important, because it has direct practical implications for how we live. If we cannot rely on science alone, then reason is impotent to deal with certain areas of life, and in those areas we have no choice but to rely on irrational forms of mysticism. Every period in history that was dominated by this epistemology, like the Middle Ages, was a period of darkness, poverty, and despair. If any debate matters, this one does.Science depends on induction and on measurement, which my opponent has challenged, so I will begin by demonstrating that induction is a valid form of proof and that everything that exists is measurable. Once I have done that, I will apply this theoretical foundation to the three areas of life my opponent says science cannot be applied to.InductionInduction is the form of inference that moves from particular to universal, as opposed to deduction, which moves from universal to particular. When I argue that "all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal," I am making a deductive inference. When I infer the universal claim that all men are mortal from studying many particular cases of men dying, I am making an inductive inference.The ability of induction to prove things cannot rationally be doubted, since all knowledge ultimately stems from induction. The premises of a deductive argument have to be based, at bottom, on induction from observed instances. If induction isn't proof, then no conclusion can be proven, including the conclusion that induction isn't valid.However, rather than irrationally doubting induction itself, we might wonder how induction works. Induction can prove a conclusion in two ways.First, many simple causal connections are self evident. For example, when a child pushes a ball and sees that it rolls, he can see immediately that there is a causal connection between his pushing a ball and its rolling. There is no rational doubt about the existence of a causal connection here. Second, more advanced causal connections can be discovered by means of Mill's methods of agreement and difference. Mill's methods are based on the premise that if we observe that A is always followed by B, and we have eliminated all other relevant variables, then there must be a causal connection between A and B. [1]An example of Mill's methods at work would be Benjamin Franklin's discovery that lightning is composed of electricity. During a lightning storm, Franklin attached a key to a kite along with a Leyden flask, a flask that is only charged if it has come into contact with an electrical charge. After the kite was struck by lightning, Franklin checked the Leyden flask for a charge, and found one.This experiment establishes, inductively and with certainty, that lightning is composed of electricity. The flask was not charged before it came into contact with the lightning, and it was charged afterward. All other relevant variables have been eliminated by the experimental setup. Therefore, lightning must be composed of electricity - there is no rational doubt.This completes my defense of science against my opponent's charge that science cannot provide proof. Science can prove things using induction, which is undeniably a valid form of reasoning. MeasurementScience is based on measurement, but what is measurement? I quote Ayn Rand from one of her most important works, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "Measurement is the identification of a relationship - a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit." [2]From this definition, it should be clear that anything that exists must be measurable. If something exists, then it is something in particular, i.e., it has definite attributes - this is the law of identity. If something has definite attributes, then it must be capable of being quantitatively compared to other things that exist, either by means of the cardinal numbers or the ordinal numbers.To explain this last point, the cardinal numbers are the numbers "1, 2, 3, 4..." and so on. When we compare two things using the cardinal numbers, we say how many of one there are in the other. For example, "this is five feet long" takes the standard foot as the standard and says that the thing being measured contains five feet. The ordinal numbers are the numbers "first, second, third..." and so on. They compare one thing to the other, as in "this is longer than that."So, anything that exists should be measurable - you should always be able to say that it has some specific cardinal or ordinal relationship to something else you know of.Applying ScienceHaving shown that induction is a valid form of proof and that everything that exists is measurable, I will now demonstrate that science is applicable to all of the areas of life my opponent says it isn't.The EmotionsAccording to Ayn Rand, every psychological process has two measurable attributes, intensity and scope. These are measured comparatively, using the ordinal numbers - we don't say "Bob is five times happier than Sue," but we might say "Bob is happier than Sue." In the case of happiness, intensity is measured by reference to the relationship of the fact being evaluated to the hierarchy of the person's values. The happiness a person feels when eating a cheeseburger is objectively less intense than the happiness he feels when getting a promotion at work that he has always wanted, because these facts occupy different positions in his value hierarchy.There is not a single "spectrum of emotions," as my opponent misunderstands my previous post. One emotion can be measured in multiple ways, and different emotions may require different standards of measurement. Still, the fact remains that any emotion is measurable.MoralityThe standard of measurement in morality, as I argued previously, is the actor's life. Every action a person takes can be evaluated by this standard, by comparing it to the other alternatives available to him.My opponent's only objection to my claim that morality is measurable is that whether or not one action is more moral than the other depends on the circumstances. For example, stealing a car can be more or less immoral than stealing a purse, depending on the value of the car and purse.The response to this is simply that we have to take all of the facts into account when we make our measurement. Given all of the facts about a specific case, we will always be able to show objectively that one action is more or less (or equally) immoral.Societal SystemsMy opponent claims that we cannot show scientifically that democracy is the best form of government. However, given what I have argued about induction and measurement, it should be clear that this is possible. We can use Mill's methods to establish that societies that respect people's rights are better than dictatorships on nearly every criterion. I do not mean to imply that political questions are always easy to answer, but it should be clear that careful measurement and induction from observation is the best method to use. The only alternative is mysticism.ConclusionI did two things in this speech. First, I defended the theoretical basis of science, including:1. Induction, inference from particular to universal. It is self refuting to reject induction. Further, countless inductive claims have been proven with certainty. Mill's methods are an important case.2. Measurement, identification of a quantitative relationship by means of a standard. I showed that everything is measurable.Second, I showed that science applies to three areas of life:1. The emotions can be measured comparatively.2. Morality can be measured by reference to the actor's life.3. Political judgments can be established by applying Mill's methods to history.For these reasons, we should negate. Thank you.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://aynrandlexicon.com...