Science is a Threat to Humanity

Defense:Contention 1: I apologize for not providing a source which displays this with a bibliography. Here is a more substantial source: . http://www.washingtonpost.com...; While I will concede that this issue itself should be rectified, I disagree with his other points. Statistics have shown that this level of scientific illiteracy exists, and studies should be displayed to the opposite effect. We would not assume that starving children don't exist anymore simply because updated figures are not shown. Statistics denoting a trend may fluctuate, but the thrust of the argument is the existence of a trend. Data needs to be used to shown this is false. I will also provide a second source to corroborate my statement here: . http://www.washingtonpost.com...In regards to his statement concerning disagreement, they too must have data to back this up. Data which is collected in a valid manner should not be disputed without good reason, which needs to be displayed here as well. If there are disagreements with the data, please display the counterargument so it may be evaluated. Contention 2: My opponent has displayed no example of a scientific experiment harming anyone. At this level, it is a bare assertion. This leaves us only with "it is possible that science may cause harm," which does not fulfill the "likely" requirement the word threat implies. AttackContention 1: My opponent discusses fire and animals, stating that these phenomena are dangerous to humans. However, as I have stated in my second contention, the study of this does not, in any way, increase the danger of these phenomena. My opponent must display that this is not the case, that the scientific study of said phenomena have increased harm. If he does not, then my point, that scientific study, by its very nature, can not increase risk, stands. Contention 2: My opponent discusses the creation of nuclear weapons, and states that this creation implies that science is a threat to humanity. This leads me to a few objections:a. . http://www.nuclearfiles.org... display of the amount of nuclear weapon tests that have occurred. As you can see, the amount is growing less and less extensive as time passes. If, as my opponent says, nuclear weapons pose a threat to all people in the present, this number should be much higher. But that claim contradicts the evidence we can see. b. Nuclear weapons, though it may be a product of scientific study, is not, in and of itself, science. Science, according to my opponent's definition, refers to the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. Nuclear weapons were invented (definition: create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of)[1], but this does not mean that they are science. It is a product that was aided by science, but was not, in and of itself, science. To provide an analogy, eugenics is an idea that can be derived from evolution, as the genes of humanity least desired are removed from the gene pool. However, does this make evolution dangerous in and of itself? No, it merely means that the results of evolution have been shown to be a threat. The same would be said of philosophy's part in creating nihilism. If nihilism is shown to be a negative, that does not make philosophy, in and of itself, a threat. I thank my opponent, again, for instigating this debate. I feel as if it teaches me ideas at every step of the way. [1] = Google Search - Invent definition