Instigator / Pro
3
1480
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#142
Science is not objective.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Type1
Judges
secularmerlin
0 debates /
1 votes
Voted
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
Contender / Con
4
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
The debate resolution is "Science is not objective."
This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.
First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments.
Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.
Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.
Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.
If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.
Round 1
(1) Introduction and rules
Thank you for participating in this debate. I will be arguing in favor of the debate resolution, "Science is not objective."
This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.
First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for opening arguments and definitions.
Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.
Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.
Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.
If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.
Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.
(2) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."
(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).
(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).
The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).
(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".
(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.
"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]
Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".
"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.
In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.
"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]
"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]
The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.
(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,
"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]
"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]
The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.
One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.
But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.
They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.
(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
I will start by saying that there are 3 types of reality that the human mind can be aware of, one of them is beyond our grasp but we can know it is there and another is not actually a "reality" but takes up the majority of the average human's thought process. The "non-reality type of reality" is the world of the conceptual, the abstract, and/or the inherently subjective. The reality which science deals with is the physical reality, which is mechanistic in nature. The reality which is beyond our grasp is what fundamentally underlies the mechanical reality, it is what things are rather than merely how they behave.
Despite the fact that the human mind is inclined towards a subjective outlook, there is an objective basis for how things behave in the physical and mechanistic reality in which we live which humans are capable of discerning in many instances. The reason that I know this is because I already know the basis for the subjective reality, which is rooted in the physical just as the physical is rooted in a deeper existential reality which we can't perceive. If it was not for the mechanical processes in place within our brains, our subjective reality would not exist, we know this because you can alter the subjective experience with electrical and chemical changes in the brain. In other words the very existence of subjectivity is at the whim of a mechanical scientific reality of physical phenomena. It's quite impossible for a subjective experience to exist without an objective physical reality, and we already understand that our subjective reality is only possible thanks to the objective principles of a physical reality which we are understanding more and more thanks to science. So if science is not objective, why does it explain the entire basis for why subjectivity exists in the first place?
Round 2
I award 1 point to CON for their opening argument.
I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate and for doing such a nice job of presenting their framework for 3 types of reality in a concise and conversational style.
I believe our ontological outlook is similar, but there are some differences and I will attempt to highlight these differences and formulate some specific questions for CON.
CON says, (cr1.1)"I will start by saying that there are 3 types of reality that the human mind can be aware of, one of them is beyond our grasp [Type 1] but we can know it is there and another is not actually a "reality" but takes up the majority of the average human's thought process. The "non-reality type of reality" [Type 2] is the world of the conceptual, the abstract, and/or the inherently subjective."
CON says, "...one of them is beyond our grasp..." (presumably Type 1) which I agree with but I'm not sure it follows that, "...but we can know it is there..."
PRO (pr2.1) What I have highlighted as [Type 1] reality, is what I propose we label "noumenon". The primary characteristic of noumenon is that it is unknowable. There is no possible aspect of noumenon that is verifiable in any way, either by direct or indirect observation, or by logical induction or deduction. Noumenon is merely a conceptual, hypothetical (untestable) placeholder for the unknown/unknowable. It might be hypothesized that noumenon is "pure objectivity" and as such a claim can never be either confirmed or denied, it makes a rather convenient appeal-to-ignorance case for anyone seeking to build an argument in favor of the existence of "pure objectivity". Noumenon is imaginary and does not properly qualify as "real" or "extant" because it is not scientifically verifiable. Noumenon is [Type 1] reality.
PRO (pr2.2) What I have highlighted as [Type 2] reality, is what I propose we label "qualia". The primary characteristic of qualia is that it is meaningful and personal. Qualia is the primary experience each of us has as an integral part of our human identity. Qualia is almost exclusively private. Qualia is multi-layered and includes such conceptual structures as conscious/subconscious and id/ego/superego. Qualia can be apparently corroborated but never perfectly verifiable because of its private nature. Qualia is fundamentally and epistemologically indistinguishable from a dream state. Examples of qualia are meaningful (scientifically unverifiable) concepts like, love, family, nation, home, useful, and good. Qualia is imaginary and does not properly qualify as "real" or "extant" because it is not scientifically verifiable. Qualia is Type 2 reality.
CON says, (cr1.2)"The reality which science deals with [Type 3] is the physical reality, which is mechanistic in nature. The reality which is beyond our grasp [Type 1] is what fundamentally underlies the mechanical reality, it is what things are rather than merely how they behave."
PRO (pr2.3) What I have highlighted as [Type 3] reality, is what I propose we label "quanta". The primary characteristic of quanta is that it is value-neutral and public. Quanta is the realm of scientifically quantifiable measurements, sound axiomatic/tautological logic, data, and facts. Quanta can generally be corroborated and verified relatively easily using standardized methodology. Examples of quanta are value-neutral, like, 1 mile, 2 inches, 3 planets, 4 grams. While good scientific data is generally considered quanta, scientific []conclusions[] based on this data are almost always qualia. Only quanta properly qualifies as "real" or "extant" because it is axiomatically scientifically verifiable. Quanta is Type 3 reality.
CON says, (cr1.3)"Despite the fact that the human mind is inclined towards a subjective outlook [Type 2], there is an objective [Type 1] basis for how things behave in the physical and mechanistic reality [Type 3] in which we live which humans are capable of discerning in many instances. The reason that I know this is because I already know the basis for the subjective [Type 2] reality, which is rooted in the physical [Type 3] just as the physical is rooted in a deeper existential reality [Type 1] which we can't perceive."
PRO (pr2.4) CON seems to be suggesting here, that even though qualia [Type 2] is subjective, because it is rooted in quanta [Type 3], and quanta [Type 3] is rooted in noumenon [Type 1] that it might be considered objective(?). CON seems to be suggesting that (IFF) noumenon is properly objective and quanta is rooted in noumenon (THEN) quanta is also (potentially) objective and iff qualia is rooted in quanta (THEREFORE) qualia is also (potentially) objective. I would say this logic fails on verifiability. For example, (IFF) noumenon is assumed to be objective and is yet unknowable/unverifiable (THEN) it is impossible to verify if quanta correlates with noumenon in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, even (IFF) quanta is assumed to be objective and perfectly value-neutral (THEN) it is impossible to either inductively or deductively extrapolate "objective qualia" because qualia is not value-neutral and being fundamentally subjective (private), it is antithetical to the very concept of objective.
CON says, (cr1.4)"If it was not for the mechanical [Type 3] processes in place within our brains, our subjective [Type 2] reality would not exist, we know this because you can alter the subjective experience with electrical and chemical [Type 3] changes in the brain. In other words the very existence of [Type 2] subjectivity is at the whim of a mechanical scientific [Type 3] reality of physical phenomena."
PRO (pr2.5) However, since we are fundamentally unable to distinguish (true?) qualia [Type 2] from a dream or elaborate hallucination, it is impossible for us to determine conclusively if quanta [Type 3] is primary or simply a category of qualia.
CON says, (cr1.5)"It's quite impossible for a subjective [Type 2] experience to exist without an objective [Type 1] physical [Type 3] reality, and we already understand that our subjective [Type 2] reality is only possible thanks to the objective [Type 1] principles of a physical [Type 3] reality which we are understanding more and more thanks to science. So if [Type 3] science is not [Type 1] objective, why does it explain the entire basis for why subjectivity exists in the first place?"
PRO (pr2.6) Quanta does not "...explain the entire basis for why we subjectively exists in the first place..." Quanta itself explains nothing. Quanta itself is incapable of explaining anything. Quanta is value-neutral raw data. We like to believe that our corroborated experiential qualitative reality is "real" or "fact" but this is a category error. The common definitions of "real" and "fact" absolutely preclude the examination of anything that is not purely and scientifically quantifiable.
(pr2.1) Question: Do we agree that [Type 1] is unknowable noumenon? Please explain.
(pr2.2) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is meaningful experiential qualia? Please explain.
(pr2.3) Question: Do we agree that [Type 3] is value-neutral scientifically measurable quanta? Please explain.
(pr2.4) Question: Are you suggesting that because [Type 1] might be objective, that the other two types are also somehow objective? Please explain.
(pr2.5) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is fundamentally indistinguishable for an elaborate dream? Please explain.
(pr2.6) Question: Do we agree that the terms "real" and "fact" can only apply to [Type 3]? Please explain.
This has been a very enjoyable and informative debate so far and I look forward to the final round.
I award 1 point to pro.
(pr2.1) Question: Do we agree that [Type 1] is unknowable noumenon? Please explain.
Your definition for this is fine. One thing that I would add however is that even though it's nature is unknowable, It's existence is logically necessitated by the fact that anything exists at all. Information and physical phenomena would not exist if there was no real "something" underlying it.
pr2.2) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is meaningful experiential qualia? Please explain.
Yes, Qualia is the realm of subjectivity in and of itself. To be clear however, it is objectively true that we are sentient beings, and since our consciousness exists we know that Noumenon must exist because other wise we could not exist to begin with. Even if everything we perceive is subjective, including what we perceive as Quanta, the very fact that our consciousness exists proves that something real exists. Since we also know that our consciousness is contingent upon the properties of the quanta realm and the qualia is subjective by it's very nature it follows that quanta is superior to qualia objectivity wise and closer to noumenon. In other words there must be some objectivity to it even if it's not entirely objective because it is causally linked to our experience of qualia, which is objectively real despite the qualia itself being inherently subjective.This is how we can know philosophically, that reality itself exists, and the closest we can come to knowing it is to understand it's physical properties.
(pr2.3) Question: Do we agree that [Type 3] is value-neutral scientifically measurable quanta? Please explain.
Quanta is the only one where I don't agree with how you name and describe it. For convenience we can keep referring to it as quanta but "quantifiable" is not an accurate criteria for it. It is not raw, value-neutral information but rather it is the physical behaviour of noumenon itself. Physicality must exist for consciousness and qualia to exist and noumenon must exist for physicality to exist, because noumenon is the essence of all that "is" and quanta is what allows qualia to exist through the principles of chemistry and biology etc. Scientific methodology is designed to determine how reality behaves, not what reality is, as such it is capable of bringing you to objective conclusions about reality because even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality.
(pr2.4) Question: Are you suggesting that because [Type 1] might be objective, that the other two types are also somehow objective? Please explain.
Noumenon and quanta are always objective. The problem is when qualia interferes with our perception of Quanta. We know that we can know things about Quanta, as in our brains are capable of comprehending it, so as long as we are using an accurate methodology we can ascertain quanta. Scientific methodology works when applied correctly, and only fails when qualia interferes. Ironically, one of the main ways Qualia interferes is when we try to quantify reality itself instead of accepting Noumenon as a field rather than a series of quantifiable "bits" (quantum/theoretical physics itself is qualia and is unscientific in methodology as it assumes theoretical mathematics is a valid substitute for empirical data).
(pr2.5) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is fundamentally indistinguishable for an elaborate dream? Please explain.
Qualia is subjective experience and quanta is necessary for it to exist. You can experience quanta subjectively and you can also experience things that are entirely qualia but qualia itself is rooted in the mechanics of quanta and we are capable of knowing quanta (which basically is reality itself in terms of how noumenon itself behaves)
(pr2.6) Question: Do we agree that the terms "real" and "fact" can only apply to [Type 3]? Please explain.
They apply to reality itself (noumenon) and thus to quanta as well (how noumenon behaves physically).Qualia is the only thing that can be considered not real, as it is the realm of what is imagined or felt and is only a reflection of processes occurring in the realm of quanta.
Round 3
I award 2 points to CON for their excellent identification of common ground and clearly highlighting points of disagreement.
CON says, (cr2.1) "Your definition for this is fine. One thing that I would add however is that even though it's nature is unknowable, It's existence is logically necessitated by the fact that anything exists at all. Information and physical phenomena would not exist if there was no real "something" underlying it."
PRO says, (pr3.1) I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" and "what may be fundamentally unknowable." For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
CON says, (cr2.2) "Yes, Qualia is the realm of subjectivity in and of itself. To be clear however, it is objectively [not objectively, merely axiomatically] true that we are sentient beings, and since our consciousness exists [consciousness (as qualia) cannot "exist"] we know that [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of] Noumenon must exist because other wise we could not exist to begin with. Even if everything we perceive is subjective, including what we perceive as Quanta, the very fact that our consciousness exists [consciousness (as qualia) cannot "exist"] proves that something [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of noumenon] real exists. Since we also know that our consciousness is [only apparently] contingent upon the properties of the quanta realm and the qualia is subjective by it's very nature it follows that quanta is superior to qualia objectivity [not objectively, only reliability] wise and closer to noumenon [this is a leap-of-faith]. In other words there must be some objectivity to it even if it's not entirely objective [objectivity is binary, it is the polar opposite of subjectivity, you cannot combine the two concepts] because it is causally linked to our experience of qualia, which is objectively real despite the qualia itself being inherently subjective [this is a leap-of-faith].This is how we can know philosophically, that reality itself [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of noumenon] exists, and the closest we can come to knowing it is to understand it's physical properties [this is a leap-of-faith]."
PRO says, (pr3.2) I believe I disagree with CON on the prioritization of the layers we are currently describing. I believe qualia is primary, since qualia is our personal experience of everything we can know. Our introduction to this cosmos is through our eyes and ears and mouth and skin. Our primary senses are collated and categorized and interpreted by our mind. I believe quanta is secondary, since only after I have accumulated adequate personal data am I able to determine where my perceptions and those of "other people" overlap within well defined parameters (scientific data stripped of meaningfulness, quanta). I realize that although I might consider an object "mine" and "valuable", someone else might consider it "theirs" or "undesirable" or "neutral". While the scientific description of the object is not in dispute (reliably stable, value-neutral quanta), however the contextual meaning of the object changes based on the perspective of the observer. I believe that noumenon is tertiary, since (the concept of) noumenon can only be "discovered" once we have thoroughly explored our scientific limits and found that they are incapable of "explaining all possible phenomenon". This leaves us with the strong intuition that there is "more" to be discovered along with the realization that there may likely be some hypothetical limit to human exploration, beyond which we may find what is fundamentally-unknowable. Certainly we have not reached the full limit of what is potentially-knowable, but at this point it would seem nearly-impossible to accurately estimate exactly how much of what is not currently known, may or may not be knowable at some point in the future.
CON says, (cr2.3) "Quanta is the only one where I don't agree with how you name and describe it. For convenience we can keep referring to it as quanta but "quantifiable" is not an accurate criteria for it. It is not raw, value-neutral information but rather it is the physical behaviour of noumenon itself. Physicality must exist for consciousness and qualia to exist and noumenon must exist for physicality to exist, because noumenon is the essence of all that "is" and quanta is what allows qualia to exist through the principles of chemistry and biology etc. Scientific methodology is designed to determine how reality behaves, not what reality is, as such it is capable of bringing you to objective conclusions [conclusions cannot be objective] about reality because even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality."
PRO says, (pr3.3) let me highlight one statement, "...even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality." Ok, do the physics algorithms and collision detection in a video game describe a one-to-one relationship to the computer circuit board? Nothing in the game, no matter how reliable it might seem to the players, does not tell you anything at all about the hardware it is running on. You could never figure out how to build a computer and learn how to program it from playing a single game. I know this is the final round, but I would love to read your preferred definition of the term "science". In my understanding, we can only apply our subjective apparatus, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind, in an effort to identify as specifically as possible, data that is generally indisputable by people with similar perceptions and mental inclinations. Purely scientific data cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. We generally presume it is reasonable to inductively reason that what happens in a laboratory, probably will happen similarly outside of the laboratory, and what happens in other mammals will probably have similar effects in humans, but as we know, this inductive reasoning is very often incorrect or incomplete or misleading. And even if the data is pure, so-to-speak, it is still sample-biased and objectivity cannot tolerate any sort of bias, but even if we had what we could call, purely objective data, our scientific []conclusions[] will always be qualia. The data is scientific (and often mistaken for objective) because it is meaningless. The scientific []conclusions[] are an attempt to inject meaningfulness into meaningless data.
CON says, (cr2.4) "Noumenon and quanta are always objective. The problem is when qualia interferes with our perception of Quanta. We know that we can know things about Quanta, as in our brains are capable of comprehending it, so as long as we are using an accurate methodology we can ascertain quanta. Scientific methodology works when applied correctly, and only fails when qualia interferes. Ironically, one of the main ways Qualia interferes is when we try to quantify reality itself instead of accepting Noumenon as a field rather than a series of quantifiable "bits" (quantum/theoretical physics itself is qualia and is unscientific in methodology as it assumes theoretical mathematics is a valid substitute for empirical data)."
PRO says, (pr3.4) Ok, we may be closing in on our most important point of disagreement. Quanta is merely a subcategory of qualia. Quanta is the qualia that is reliably measurable and specifically identifiable between a broad cross-section of multiple human perceptions. Because humans often disagree about value-judgments, we purposefully strip this specific subcategory of qualia of its meaningfulness in order to facilitate a certain level of indisputability. Without qualia, we humans would be incapable of perceiving anything at all, and therefore science as we know it would not exist. There is no way for quanta to be measured without "qualia interfering" (through the very act of perception and another particularly key ingredient, qualitative "motivation").
CON says, (cr2.5) "Qualia is subjective experience and quanta is necessary for it to exist. You can experience quanta subjectively and you can also experience things that are entirely qualia but qualia itself is rooted in the mechanics of quanta and we are capable of knowing quanta (which basically is reality itself in terms of how noumenon itself behaves)"
PRO says, (pr3.5) The "fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon" is the only thing "necessary" for qualia to "exist" and since we have no way of comparing quanta with "the-fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon", there is no way to say confidently if, when, or how they might or might not be similar.
CON says, (cr2.6) "They apply to reality itself (noumenon) and thus to quanta as well (how noumenon behaves physically).Qualia is the only thing that can be considered not real, as it is the realm of what is imagined or felt and is only a reflection of processes occurring in the realm of quanta."
PRO says, (pr3.6) I'm not convinced the term "fact" can apply to noumenon. Furthermore I am unable to detect any direct or indirect relationship between noumenon and quanta. I agree with you that qualia is 99% imaginary, I also believe that quanta is (axiomatically) 100% real.
PRO's round 3 closing statement:
This has been a phenomenal debate. I would like to thank CON for their focused and well reasoned arguments, fine attention to detail and obvious rhetorical skill.
I would also like to make a note that in the event of a tie on points, I would like to award one additional point to CON (as a tie-breaker) in appreciation their outstanding performance.
Forfeited
Round 4
3 points total for CON.
1 point for PRO.
As the totals stand at the moment, CON wins the debate.
CON has the option to modify or confirm the final tally if they wish.
Forfeited
- - i'm approaching this from a broad application of the word "objective" - - as it relates to "objective news reports" and "objective morality" (the "view from nowhere") - - - if you narrow the definition of "objective" to mean simply "an object and an accurate description of objects and the relationships between objects" - - then in that sense, PART OF "science" is certainly "accurately describing objects" - - but the "scientific conclusions" usually move beyond simply "accurately describing objects" and instead inform things like "government policy" and "recommendations for individual behavior"
also
if you narrow the word "science" down to simply "a method of documenting empirically verifiable observations" - - it could be said that in the narrow "objective = objects" sense, these two are compatible - - but in the broader, more common understanding most people have of "science" meaning "scientific institutions" and "scientific conclusions" aka "trust the science" and the broader more common understanding of "objective" meaning "unbiased" "identical to all possible observers" "immutable and incontrovertible" then they are NOT compatible
"I would still consider that a personal win."
Why not? You awarded the points.
Lol
It appears as if I have lost this debate, however I have gained new insight into my philosophical arguments.
I would still consider that a personal win.
Please create this debate and get a judge to agree to moderate and I will join - "I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO." if you are still interested.
You seem to misunderstand.
It is impossible for me to win if you decide not to award me any points.
but it's YOU who decides what I get rated and scored and YOU (who believes that resolution is true) that I have to prove is WRONG... see the issue?
The burden-of-proof is shared equally by both participants.
Because it is you who has to be convinced and you also have to avoid losing.
Why don't you simply join this debate and argue that "true science" actually "is objective" and all "so-called-science" that fails the test of objectivity is actually "pseudo-science".
This seems like as good a starting point as any.
I'm pretty sure my arguments would be identical in either case.
With these same proposed definitions?
I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO.
Please let me know if you would like to make any modifications to these proposed definitions.
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
I propose that we provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+objective&spf=394&cad=h
[8] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+subjective&spf=399&cad=h
And what are the definitions?
Perfecto.
So let's first agree on definitions before debating then.
In order to resolve the disagreement in viewpoints, each side builds a case with logical support.
You begin this process by stating explicit definitions and then addressing any conflicts between the PRO and CON definitions individually as they are identified.
This process is called "identifying common ground".
Once common ground is identified, then a logical case is built by both sides (upon the agreed negotiated definitions) and errors are identified by each opponent.
The point of Civil Debate is to actually resolve conflict and not simply to bully your opponent into submission.
If the definitions are not explicitly agreed upon, then both sides are able to build cases that may use similar words but actually have nothing to do with each other which results in two people talking past each other without realizing they are debating two completely different topics.
Either science is objective or it's subjective.
To the former believer, the latter is speaking untruth in denying the resolution and vice versa.
Please explain what you mean by, "You either learn nothing new or rule one is never broken."
You either learn nothing new or rule one is never broken.
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Every definition of truth requires facts.
Facts are indisputable.
Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense must agree on the facts.
If you and your opponent disagree about a fact, you must immediately stop the debate and negotiate the point of disputed fact.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Just like a boxing champion, you are only as good as your opponent.
Ridicule is below the belt.
Use logic.
Your identity cannot qualify or disqualify sound logic.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
When your opponent makes a valid objection, you have the option to award them a point.
Valid objections strengthen your argument.
Help your opponent strengthen their position by presenting a steel man.
The best debates are the ones that force you to learn something new.
I don't want rule three and I don't understand rule one as truth hasn't been defined.