What can science prove?

[Violet]

You narrowed the argument yet there are exceptions. As I said before, you have not proved that tunafish exist (they may all be delusions we suffer). Nor have you proved that every single one will die, since you have no method to know where each tunafish on Earth is (one may be in the very centre of the Earth, protected for all time). Your assume these things are true, and base your conclusion off these assumptions. It isn't a proof. Proofs cannot possibly be wrong, otherwise they would not be proofs. Do you agree? If you do, then you should be able to see my line of reasoning clearly. There are always exceptions, always other hypothetical situations that are "possible", and thus science does not prove anything, but puts a probability on one of the hypothetical situations, saying the evidence matches it the best.

But even delusions exist, Adrian. Their existence, while not tangible, remains a fact. If they did not exist, you could not consider them.

Of course, everything that we think is tangible could easily be an elaborate delusion. All things (tunafish included) exist as concepts, and we've no capacity to rationalize a things existence outside of its being a concept (as to do so we would have to make it a concept). We have no evidence that we do not generate our reality as concepts... and therefore the statement that nonexistence exists could be as equally valid as stating that anything else exists (all the more so when it exists outside of logic).

By this definition of proof (that it cannot possibly be wrong)... we have opened the door into questioning what is possible (As well as what is 'right' and 'wrong'). We have no grounds save anecdotal ones to consider that which exists outside of logic (which evidently things can) as being not possible. Therefore proof in the sense that we could know a thing cannot possibly be wrong is impossible (Or is it in fact? )... hence the question of "What can science prove?" (which is already based on the 'proof' being 'impossible') is a loaded question.

The fact that you must make those assumptions is what holds my argument together. Strictly speaking, we cannot know the second assumption to be true- we merely make the deduction that it is due to our past experience with it. That's not to say that things can't change tomorrow; we cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural occurences in the same way we cannot conclusively rule out the possibilty of a god. It COULD happen. As such, the extent to which science can claim "proof" is limited by this exceptionally thin margin of uncertainty.

There is only assumption when it comes to what we know... what else would our knowledge be based on? We could certainly know things to be true... but that doesn't mean we're 'right' in our knowledge.

---

That's not true, the manifestation of supernatural or non-material entities (should they exist) in reality would still be measurable, so it's false to say science operates on the assumption of materialism, it is simply the case that everything ever observed in (or acting upon) reality has a (most likely) materialistic origin. The simple fact that the best explanations for any phenomenon (in terms testability, repeatability, explanatory power and the ability to make predictions) are materialistic in origin does not mean the supernatural is discounted by default.

Nor indeed should they be considered as supernatural or non-material... for they are simply another part of a 'greater' nature and of different substance that is immaterial (if indeed such things exist, which they like all other things do).