My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Kirbmarc]

You can't prove everything that is "true" in a scientific way, but this depends on what you define as "true".

Also, not everything is proved in the same way, and some things just don't need to be proved.

1) Mathematics cannot be proven by science. Science rests on certain mathematical assumptions we all reasonably hold to be true, but cannot be proven scientifically without arguing in circles.

Mathematics is a human tool that we can use to make the universe understable. Mathematics as a whole doesn't need to proved (it's just assumed to be true).

Single mathematic assertions can be proved if they follow the rule of mathematics and are consisent with the axioms. The axioms themselves are simply assumed as true.

Different axioms can lead to different kinds of mathematics. The parallele postulate, for example, can be assumed as an axiom (leading to Euclidean geometry) or not (leading to the non-Euclidean geometries).

When we use mathematics in science we always use the right tool for the job: some phenomena are more easily described in Euclidean space, other in a non-Euclidean space.

Sciene doesn't rest on mathematics assumption, but uses mathematics as a language.

Theorethically we could do science without using mathematics, but it'd be a horribly complicated, extremely long and tedious job, and setting up experiments would be next to impossible.

2) Same as above for Logic

Logic is a feature of human thought, that we use very time we try to understand something. It's hard-wired in our brains, we can't NOT use it. Logic as whole doesn't need to be proved (and CAN'T be proved: we just accept that it's how we work).

Single assertions can be evaluted according to logic, but logic as a whole is just how our brains work.

3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

Historical truths depends on documents and reports (written ,visual or of other nature) that are evaluted according to scientific criteria.

4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

You CANNOT prove that the external world is real. You either assume it is or not. But the assumption that the external world doesn't exist leads you nowhere, philosophically speaking.

5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

This is why we have aesthetics. But aesthetics isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

This is why we have moral philosophy. But moral philosophy isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

This is why we have theoretical philosophy and epistemology. But what you define as "true" in philopsophy is not the same thing that you define as "true" in science.

Scientific thruths are evaluted according to the external world. Philosophical truth are evaluted according to their internal coherence.

Most truth cannot be accessed by science.

It depends on what you define as "truth".

---

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

I already have. And Immanuel kant has done it before me.