Nothing in science is ever proven

C refers to Con, P refers to Pro. Arguments that I put forward will be listed as C's, yours will be listed as P's. C1: The hypothesis that Abraham Lincoln was fake is arbitrary, and thus unscientific. I think at this point I will do something that I should have done earlier in this debate, and that is to provide a definition of science (1): noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. For our purposes, I propose that we use definition 2, that science is 'systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation'. In history books, reading about Abraham Lincoln, all knowledge about him was achieved by observing him. This is a very basic form of science, that for all practical purposes is so obvious as to not require use of the scientific method. While you may say that reading in history books is not scientific, the same must apply to reading a science textbook, and reading about scientific knowledge. C2: Our knowledge of reproduction goes far beyond mere observation of bears producing baby bears. We understand the cellular process (though not every single aspect, which is why we continue to study it). Even if a bear made a lizard, this would not destroy biological theory. It would require changes, and an understanding of why an exception has happened. Perhaps when bears get struck by radioactive lightning, their DNA rearranges to make them produce lizards (yes, i know this is an arbitrary hypothesis, but so is the idea I'm refuting here) However, you have missed the point here. What I meant was that we can be certain of the truth, because we can be certain of the truth that something is false. Taken to its logical conclusion, your idea must mean that nothing can be proven false either. And this, of course, destroys your whole argument. P1: But what about the ideas that have not been considered yet? According to your logic, you have have to say that these should also be considered true. Ideas should begin by being considered false, and then proven true. If an idea is proven true, but has exceptions, these exceptions should also begin by being considered false, and then proven true. The best scientific model of the day should be one that is as accurate as possible according to current knowledge. A model that has contradictions is obviously not as accurate as possible. As for the judicial system, my opponent is correct in realizing that it should ignore arbitrary doubt. But the reason is not about time, its about truth, and arbitrary hypotheses should not be contemplated at any point. As for suspects proving their innocence, they only have to do this when there is reason to suspect their guilt. A scientific example would be the shape of the Earth. At first glance, the idea of a flat Earth seems self evident, but as scientific evidence to the contrary increases, the Earth is proven to be round. The idea of a flat Earth is a much more rational idea (at first glance, with no real inquiry) than the idea that my brain is a piggy bank, because it is not arbitrary. P2: I'm not saying that that individual theory would change, I'm saying that scientific theory as a whole would change. For an analogy, somebody new moving into a village does not destroy what the village is and replaces it with something completely different. Somebody moving into a village modifies the village a little bit, and certain other factors will change as a result. But the village is still the same village. I would also like to add a quote by my opponent: "Scientific theory will be proven false when another theory is proven true" Sounds like a concession to me. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...