Battleground God

[Tiberius]

I don't need to 'philosophically' prove evolution. I've already scientifically proved it.

You hit upon the crux of the matter in your bullshit, I'll give you credit there.

I'm using it as a logical argument because technically speaking it is logical. It is an unfalsifiable claim. It cannot be proven false using logic.

You also demonstrated why it is bullshit.

See: Philosophy_of_science.

All arguments (in any field) can be reduced down to logical based assertions and assumptions. The field for studying logic is philosophy. As I've stated in previous threads, scientific proof doesn't exist. This claim of mine is supported by essays written by the people at talk.origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html as well as every philosopher of science (and scientists in general).

Science doesn't prove things because the underlying philosophy of empiricism works on an assumption: that reality is material in nature, and we can learn things from observing it. There is no way of confirming this assumption, and so an assumption it remains. Any argument based off an assumption cannot be said to be "truth", since if the assumption is wrong, the argument is wrong (and so is not true), which given the definitions of the words, cannot be possible. What is true is true, and can't be false.

The question in the quiz did not ask about scientific proof. It asked about "truth". Truth is a logical concept, and in the realm of philosophy, not science. In terms of science, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the current evidence. If that evidence changes, the theory will change. It will never be said in science that "evolution is true" in the same context that "true" is given in philosophy.

Philosophical quiz...philosophical answers.