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

I'll move on to constructives. First, a rebuttal of Con's opening.1) These are substantially different resolutions - the former makes the radical claim that science cannot prove anything, whereas the latter only makes the claim that there is knowledge outside of science. Moreover, my opponent has not provided any arguments to support the resolution we are actually debating, which says that science cannot prove anything. No, not exactly. What I am arguing is that there are other realms of truth outside of science, and science cannot prove anything in these areas. Secondly, although I forgot to add it in my opening, science by definition cannot prove anything. It can only make something more or less likely to be true. That's because science's theories are tentative and provisional, meaning that they are never final (1). Thus my argument is two pronged: 1) Science should not be relied upon as the sole benifactor of truth (the first part of my resolution, put into different words), and2) Science cannnot prove anything both a) inside of it's constrictions (measurable data), and b) outside of it's constrictions (unmeasurable data). I haven't gone off topic, as Con would have you belive, I've expanded my argument to encompass all of truth, and show how science cannot give any of this truth, and thus cannot be relied upon as the sole benefactor said truth.2)First of all, my opponent claims that science can't just ask a person if they are happy, they have to ask them how happy they are, why they are happy, etc. This is not true - saying "I am happy" is a measurement. Happiness refers to a delimited area on the spectrum of emotions ranging from sadness to joy. When you say you are happy, you're saying "my emotional state is within such and such a range," which is a measurement. My question to Con would be where the other emotions fall on this spectrum. Where does pleasure fall? Is it above happiness or bellow? Where does loneliness fall on this "spectrum of emotions? " If Con answers "it depends," it means he himself acnoledges that emotion requires backround questioning of how much of that emotion s/he is feeling, and that there is no definite measurement for emotions, thus contradicting his opening statement. He would concede that there is no definite "emotional spectrum," and thus, emotions cannot be measured. If Con answers "I don't know," then emotions have no scale on which they lie, and thus cannot be measured. Then Con would concede emotions have no place in science. Love, happiness, and all other emotions that make us human must be disregarded by science. If Con answers "Yes, and it fits here on the emotional spectrum," I would ask by what scientific authority allows him to say that difintively. If there is no definite, measurable data that was used in order for him to find this conclusion, then he is not using the scientific method to come to his conclusion, and thus, not using science to come to his conclusion. Therefore, these emotions cannot be tested by science. All of these answers end in Con contradicting his own argument, that emotions a) can be tested by science, andb) are measurable, definite, and unchanging.3) My opponent also claims that morality is incapable of being measured. I disagree with this - as an egoist, I think morality can be measured, by measuring an action's effects on our long term well being. Ayn Rand defended this position in detail in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," which you can read below. I'd ask you the same question as before. If I am to steal my neighbor's car, is it worse or better than if I were to steal my neighbor's purse? If you can say that one of these is definately, measurably, and always worse, than I will concede that morals can be tested and affirmed by science. However, if you say that stealing the car is worse, what if I told you that car was 15 years old, and the purse had all of my neighbor's credit cards in it? If you say that stealing the purse is worse, what if that purse was empty, and the car was a Ferrari? Would you change your mind? If so, then morals are subjective and cannot be measured. Science, although a valuable tool in discovery of theories, has been given too much emphasis in our society. There are certain thing that science cannot test, such as sociatal systems. For example, it is widely accepted that a democracy is the best form of government, however, science cannot prove this. "It is sometimes admitted that many propositions that are affirmed by intelligent people, such as that democracy is the best form of government or that world peace depends upon world government, cannot be tested by the method of experimental science (2). " This is not to say that science has no place in our world today, but it is to say that science should not be the only diserner of truth, as it cannot prove anything either outside of it's constrictions or even inside of them. For these reasons, relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything. Con? Sources:(1) . https://www.psychologytoday.com...(2) Robert M. Hutchins, The Great Conversation (The Substance of a Liberal Education), 1952.