Science is based on logic fallacy/s

4 Rounds 8,000 Character limit 72 Hours to respond 1 Month voting period NO VIDEO LINKS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROBLEMS ? If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPECTATIONS It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round 4 Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions Science =In modern use, science is "often treated as synonymous with â€˜natural and physical scienceâ€™, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." [1] Scientific Method = Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning [2] Logic fallacy = In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception [3] Opening statement Okey thought I would cause some trouble, so I am going to attack science or more specifically the philosophical principles and foundation that science is built on. 1) Uniformitarianism In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe [4] But on what basis is it claimed that the universe operates in the same way, in all places at all times ? Obviously the universe has not been fully observed, so this claim of uniformity is based on a sample. A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part) [5] Consider this argument......... 1) All observed swans are white (This was true in some region of the world in the past) 2) Therefore all swans are white 1) All observations of the universe, show consistency of universal laws (This is true for now) 2) Therefore the Universe has and always will be consistent with those universal laws Its logically fallacious to claim that just becuse some part of the universe is consistent with universal laws, that means the universe always operates to those observed universal laws. 2) Empiricism and the reliability of experience Empiricism then, in the philosophy of science, emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature [6] But how do we know that experience (like the experince of observaing those experiments) is its self reliable ? Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise [7] 1) Experience is reliable 2) We know from experience that experience is reliable 3) Therefore experience is reliable Assuming experince is reliable to prove that experince is relialbe is logically fallacious. 3) Falsifiability "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated" "Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas" [8] So how is the principle of falsifiability its self falsifiable ? It isn't, as such according to its own rule, it should not be regarded as a scientific. Science built on a rule that its self says is not scientific. I look forward to Cons reply. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...