Resolved: Witchcraft is pseudoscience and superstition, not compatible with the scientific method.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Proposed: Witchcraft is pseudoscience and superstition, not compatible with the scientific method. The search for truth compels man to investigate by a number of methods, only one of which is a search for evidence by the scientific method, which should apply critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation. [1] Any other method of a search for truth is pseudoscience at best, and at worst, disorganized, superstitious chaos. Witchcraft touches both extremes.
Definitions:
Scientific method: [attributed to Carl Sagan] a search for evidence of truth by critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation.
Witchcraft: [OED] The exercise of supernatural power supposed to be possessed by persons in league with the devil or evil spirits. Magic arts.
Supernatural: [OED] Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings, occult, paranormal.
Pseudoscience: [OED] A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.
Superstition: [OED] A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck or a practice based on such a belief.
Debate protocol:
Rounds 1, 2, 3: Argument, rebuttal, defense
Round 4: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion
All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.
No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.
All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.
Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.
[1] Sagan, Carl, Druyan, Ann, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Penguin Random House, 1995
The resolution contains three separate claims regarding witchcraft. Those claims are as follows:
1. Witchcraft is pseudoscience.
2. Witchcraft is superstition.
3. Witchcraft is not compatible with the scientific method.
In order for the resolution to be true, all three of the foregoing claims must be true. If at least one of the foregoing claims is not true, then the resolution is not true.
My positions with respect to claims 1, 2, and 3 are as follows:
1. Claim #1 is denied. Witchcraft is NOT pseudoscience.
2. Claim #2 is admitted. Witchcraft is superstition.
3. Claim #3 is admitted. Witchcraft is not compatible with the scientific method.
Positive case with respect to my position on claim #1:
I must begin by saying that by denying that witchcraft is pseudoscience. In doing so, I do not intend to imply that witchcraft is science. Rather, I simply assert that it is inaccurate to state that witchcraft is pseudoscience. There are a great many things which are not science nor pseudoscience. For example, neither a truck is not pseudoscience. Witchcraft is not pseudoscience in the same way that a truck is not pseudoscience.
To evaluate my claim, we may examine the following definitions from the debate description:
Witchcraft: [OED] The exercise of supernatural power supposed to be possessed by persons in league with the devil or evil spirits. Magic arts.
Pseudoscience: [OED] A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.
Scientific method: [attributed to Carl Sagan] a search for evidence of truth by critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation.
Question #1: Is witchcraft "a spurious or pretended science" ?
No, it is not. Witchcraft has nothing to do with science and is not held out to be a science. Unlike a pseudoscience such as homeopathy or reflexology, proponents of witchcraft make no attempts to justify its tenets based on anything scientific. Rather, the appeal is to the supernatural or the magical, per the definition of witchcraft provided in the debate description.
The word "science" isn't defined in the debate description, but "scientific method" is defined as "a search for evidence of truth by critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation." I have never heard of any witches obtaining their "knowledge" of witchcraft in such a fashion, nor have I ever heard of witches claiming that their beliefs are in any way justified by science.
Question #2: Is witchcraft "mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth."
No, it is not. Unlike pseudoscience such as homeopathy or reflexology, there is no evidence that people mistakenly regard witchcraft as based on the scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.
For the foregoing reasons, it is inaccurate to state that witchcraft is pseudoscience. Because witchcraft is not pseudoscience, the resolution is not true.
Because I have admitted that witchcraft is superstition and that witchcraft is incompatible with the scientific method, this debate turns only on Pro's claim that witchcraft is pseudoscience. It is therefore unnecessary to respond to any of Pro's arguments outside of that.
Pro supports his claim that witchcraft is pseudoscience by stating the following:
[Witchcraft] includes the use of spells, “good,” and “bad,” which are intended to have influence over the natural world to some desired end and which influence would not occur without the incantation of these spells. That activity meets the definition of pseudoscience
This is not correct. The use of spells intended to influence the natural world is not an activity that meets the definition of "pseudoscience" as it is defined within this debate.
Pseudoscience is defined as follows: "A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth."
Spurious is defined as follows: "Not being what it purports to be; false or fake." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/spurious (Definition from Oxford... believed to be from the same source but not in debate description)
Attempting to influence the natural world with spells is not sufficient to be a spurious or pretended science. There must be some representation that it actually is a science, based on the scientific method, and/or having the status of scientific truth. There is no such representation made merely through the use of spells which are intended to have influence over the natural world. No such representation is made through the use of spells.
Pro further argues that "the use of formulae of combinations of materials as the agents of change by performing magic arts and the attempt to employ supernatural entities and forces to engage change" is sufficient to cause witchcraft to be "a pretended science"
This is not correct, either. There is no pretending to be a science. There must be some representation that it actually is a science for it to be a pseudoscience. There is no such representation made, express or implied. Witches are not pretending to be scientific.
Pro has not disputed that showing that witchcraft is not pseudoscience is sufficient to show that the resolution is false.
Argument: Witchcraft is not pseudoscience because witchcraft is not a spurious or pretended science.
Witchcraft does not imitate science. Witchcraft does not borrow from the credibility of the sciences in any way. It is not a fake science. It is not a pretended science. This is why witchcraft is not pseudoscience.
Consider other spurious or pretended items. Counterfeit products or counterfeit money, for example. Members of the public may mistake the counterfeit items for genuine items and this mistake will be to the advantage of the holders of the counterfeit products.
Consider the phenomenon of mimicry. Stinging insects such as bees and wasps develop a striped yellow and black warning pattern which predators recognize and will be less likely to attack the insects. Some species of non-stinging insects, through natural selection, will develop that same striped yellow and black warning pattern, taking advantage of the avoidant response to such a pattern among predators.
Within the marketplace of ideas there exists competition and a natural selection of ideas. As the public has become more educated the sciences have developed a certain credibility. Pseudoscience like reflexology or chiropractic take advantage of the credibility of the sciences by pretending to be scientific.
It is this what witchcraft does not do. Witchcraft is not pretending to be a science. It is not a fake or spurious science. Witchcraft does not take advantage of the credibility the public has placed in the sciences. This is why witchcraft is not pseudoscience.
Re: I.a
This was a drafting error. I neglected to remove "neither" from that specific sentence. There's nothing more to it than that.
Re: I.b
Pro's claim that I agree with him is based entirely in a drafting error that goes against the grain of everything else written.
Re: I.c
The debate description was often cited, and I did provide a sourced definition. Sources usually aren't necessary and, in my view, if they aren't essential should be avoided as they may cause one to get bogged down in unnecessary source evaluation rather than staying on topic.
Re: II.a
"Born out of wedlock" is not the definition I provided. This is related to the etymology and is not very relevant.
Re: II.b
There is no dispute that witchcraft is spurious. The dispute is whether or not witchcraft is a spurious or pretended science. Again, attempting to affect the natural world by spurious methods doesn't amount to pseudoscience.
Re: III.a
Pro has not quoted anything within the article to support his position. Pro has quoted the title, but this does not support Pro's position. I generally deny the existence of any text within the source which supports Pro's position. I challenge as unsubstantiated any of Pro's assertions to the contrary.
Re: III.b
Hypocrisy is not relevant to the truth of the resolution.
Re: III.c
The necessity of the misrepresentation is rooted in our working definition of witchcraft as a "spurious or pretended science."
The factual matter of whether or not proponents of witchcraft are pretending to be scientists is a matter for which Pro has the burden of proof. Are witches pretending to be scientific? It is impossible to disprove. It is not falsifiable. This is something which Pro must show us is true, not that I must show is false.
Re: IV.
Pro presents an interest story but it is just that, a story. It has no basis in reality. Further, Pro's asserted connections between the actions of the fabled witch and the sciences is speculative and weak:
“State your intention” [this is the attempted equivalent, I contend, to stating a hypothesis in the scientific method.]
“Time your spell” [this is the attempted equivalent of an experiment’s procedure in the scientific method.]
I.a After Con argued that his r1 was “a drafting error,” Con has apparently repeated the mistake by still another drafting error in r2, but first, let’s take Con’s allegation of his drafting error at face value. The resulting sentence is: “… a truck is not pseudoscience.” I could demand a source for the statement, but either with or without “neither,” the statement is simple in its absurdity, and, to coin Con’s preferred idiom: “it’s a weak argument.”
I.a.1 The second drafting error: [from my original definition in Description [by the OED], and from Con r1] “Pseudoscience is defined as follows: ‘A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.’"
I.a.2 Compare with Con’s r2: “There is no dispute that witchcraft is spurious. The dispute is whether or not witchcraft is a spurious or pretended science.” There’s the second “drafting error.” The first sentence declares “no dispute… witchcraft is spurious.” The immediate next sentence, disputes the first sentence in that very word: “disputes.” Either witchcraft is spurious, or there’s a dispute that it is spurious, or pretended science [note that by definition, “spurious” and “pretended science” are designating the same condition; they are synonymous].
I.b Con cannot win his argument by repeated drafting errors. One must judge a debate on what is written, not on what was intended. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I.c Therefore, as Con appears to contradict his own argument, and even if we excuse repeated drafting errors, as Con alleges from one perspective, the debate does turn on whether or not witchcraft is a spurious, pretend science, or not. In addition to the rebuttal above, I will explain how witchcraft is a pseudoscience, a.k.a., pretended science. I’ve actually said this before, but bears repeating: Witchcraft attempts to influence the natural world, as claimed in my r1, I.a. And, contrary to Con’s claim in the r2 conclusion that, “Pro is trying very hard here. If there existed convincing evidence, Pro would have found it and presented it. That evidence isn't here because that evidence doesn't exist,” I presented the first evidence in my r1, I.a, source [1], which article stipulated the attempt of witchcraft “to engage a cure, if not a prevention for illness and natural disasters.” Pro appears to ignore sources cited as if not necessary to cite them. More on that later.
I.c.1 Con also ignores my second cited source of r1, an article stipulating the evidence that, “Magical beliefs and discriminating science from pseudoscience in undergraduate professional students.”[1] [from my r1, I.a.1, which Con claimed I did not quote in my r1, but rebutted, and quoted in my r2, III.a]. Pro claims the title of the article just quoted earlier in the paragraph “does not support my position.” On the contrary. The title speaks to “magical beliefs,”a construct of witchcraft, and “discriminating science from pseudoscience,”that is, discriminating the scientific method from a spurious or pretend science, since students are demonstrated to believe “magical beliefs” as reported in media, thus exposing the issue of students’ inability to distinguish pseudoscience from science.
I.d The article effectively demonstrates there is not a discrimination to students, and that “magical beliefs,” a construct of witchcraft, is pseudoscience. One must, of course, read the article to gain that understanding, but isn’t that what debate judgment requires? The point is, I am not, as Con alleges, merely “trying very hard.”The evidence does exist, contrary to Con’s claim, and I’ve presented the evidence to support my argument. I suggest Con do the same. So far, personal opinion is claimed to be sufficient over there in Con’s realm.
I.e Further, Con boldly declares in r2, “I generally deny the existence of any text within the source which supports Pro's position. I challenge as unsubstantiated any of Pro's assertions to the contrary.” I suppose that must mean, and I caution readers to take note of this challenge, that when I have cited, as I do below, I.f, the DebateArt Voting Policy, Con considers this quote as denied to exist, because it agrees with my argument. Caveat emptor.Now, I understand Con’s disagreement with my arguments; he would disagree, “generally,” if I argued, with evidence, that Con has conducted some good debates! Drafting error #3?
I.f I will note, for the record, as referenced earlier in my I.c, that, relative to the necessity to offer scholastic sourcing in support of an argument, to date, in two rounds, Con has offered one single definition as a source in his r1, and absolutely zero sources for his several arguments in r2. Con even proposes, contrary to the DART Voting Policy regarding sourcing, [for brevity here, please refer to DA Information Center/Voting Policy/A-2 Source Points] Con states, [r2, Re: I.c], “Sources usually aren't necessary and, in my view, if they aren't essential should be avoided as they may cause one to get bogged down in unnecessary source evaluation rather than staying on topic.” “[Getting] bogged down” is a necessity of voting. It is our lot in life, those of us who consistently engage it.
II Rebuttal: Out of Wedlock
II.a Con claims in his r2 that the etymology of “spurious, ‘in the sense of born out of wedlock,’” is not part of his definition. Again, we find Con in disagreement with himself, or at least with his one cited source; the definition of “spurious.” Definition does, contrary to his claim, include etymology, as I quoted the full definition Con provided in my r2, II.a[2] Etymology plays a vital role in the definition of words, whether or not Con accepts this.
II.a.1 To quote Merriam-Webster Help, on the relevance of etymology, “The etymology traces a vocabulary entry as far back as possible in English [as to Old English], tells from what language and in what form it came into English, and… traces the pre-English source as far back as possible if the source is an Indo-European language.”[3]
III Rebuttal/Argument: Pretending to be scientists
III.a Con argues that witches do not pretend to practice science; a non-sourced claim that is supposed to prove his BoP. I will combine this rebuttal with his following comments in his r2 that fiction, by the same argument, also non-sourced, cannot represent reality. Let us, first, dispel the Con suggestion that his reference to “State your intention,”and “Time your spell,”are somehow connected with my reference to the fictional tale of Cassie Nightingalein TV’s Good Witch, a fiction; a fiction with a considerable dose of reality that employs virtually all the variant themes of fiction writing which are able to suspend disbelief; a fiction necessity to make it believable as if reality. I forgive Con's ignorance of how fiction successfully works. I am a professional at it; Con is not. This is Con’s fallacious connection. As I clearly noted by review of the separate sources cited, Good Witch,and How to Write a Spell,are not connected. I will, therefore, for this rebuttal, ignore Con’s reference to Good Witch. The source of relevance is my r2, IV.d [7], “How to Write a Spell.” And, it is my allegation, referring back to the ScienceDirect article [this round, source [1], that the Spell document makes use of a similar sequence of tasks as is used by the scientific method, to wit, “State your intention,” and “Time your spell,” with the intent, just as with applying the scientific method, to influence the natural world by statement of hypothesis, and definition of a sequence of instructions. As stated in my r1, that method is, 1. Critical questioning with skepticism, 2. Careful observation, and 3. Repeated experimentation. The composition of magic spells, and their practice by witchcraft, employ these same process steps, albeit by corrupt spuriosity: to wit: “…[1] use these spells, or craft your own rituals. …[2] from my experience when you personalize a spell it only makes it stronger… [3] Only through meditation and practice will your powers grow…”[4] Those statements mirror the scientific method's 1-2-3. Therefore, witchcraft pretends to be science, and witches, scientists.
IV Argument: Some levity
IV.a As this is my last opportunity for argument, I will close by entertaining some levity: First, I will demonstrate one spurious version of the scientific method, or not, as the eye of the newt may spoil the broth, Monty Python and the Holy Grail,[5]and following, a verse of my composition in honor of this debate.
IV.a.1 In Monty Python,we encounter a knight/executioner on a platform approached by a mob with an alleged witch in tow. The mob wants her execution. “How do you know she’s a witch?” the knight asks.
“She looks like one,” the mob leader says. She is brought forward.
The knight looks at her, declaring, “You are dressed like one.”
“This isn’t my nose. It’s a fake one. They dressed my like this,” counters the ‘witch.’
The executioner is skeptical.
“Well,” says the mob leader, “we did the nose… and the hat. But she’s a witch.”
“Did you dress her up like this?”
“No, no, no, [the crowd chimes in]… yes, a bit. She has a wart,” the mob leader alleges.
“What makes you think she’s a witch?”
“Well, she turned me into a newt,” claims another in the crown, obviously still a man. “I got better,” he claims at the Executioner’s skepticism.
“Burn her anyway,” yells another.
“Why do witches burn?” the knight challenges.
Confusion silences the crowd.
“Because… they’re made of wood?” the newt suggests.
“Good,” the knight says…. And so on.
Just who is the witch, one may inquire. And whose methods are being employed? And now, for some alleged literary entertainment:
IV. b The Stripper
“I am Science!” she declared, dancing liquid on the stage,
“My dress is formulae through and through, and transparent head to toe.”
But we weren’t watching science bared; we took exception on a different page.
We wanted less and less as she, undone, bared more and more.
Was that hypothesis she tossed? What does it say; what is its law?
“I’m influential,” she declared; the letters clear, refined, undone.
Oh, swoon! I am a fool! Can scarcely see what witches saw,
Beside the cauldron, under the hat, behind the curtain now withdrawn.
Stripped bare, the stripper danced her liquid dance; danced on
While we, undone, condoned the gestures of a conscience.
We’re captured, one and all, tied tight as knots in her abandon.
“Don’t you know me, sirs, completely bared? I am a Pseudoscience!”
©7/2020 by fauxlaw
I have already explained the drafting error. Further discussion is irrelevant.
Re: I.a.1
Copying and pasting the definition from the debate description is not a drafting error.
Re: I.a.2
Not sure what Pro is talking about here. For witchcraft to be "a spurious or pretended science", witchcraft must be a spurious science or a pretended science. The definition does not mean that witchcraft need only be spurious. I encourage you to simply read the definition and take notice of its true meaning as may reasonably be inferred, notwithstanding Pro's arguments to the contrary.
Re: I.b
I have already explained the drafting error. Further discussion is irrelevant.
Re: I.c
Pro continues to claim that influencing the natural world is sufficient to show that witchcraft is pseudoscience. Pro has not connected this to our working definition for pseudoscience which makes no mention of influencing the natural world. When I dig a hole I am influencing the natural world. But is hole-digging pseudoscience? No, it isn't. Why not? Because there is no representation that what's being done is scientific.
Re: I.c.1
Pro has failed to quote any text within the article that is supportive of his position. I continue to deny that there exists any text within the article that is supportive of Pro's position. Pro has had ample opportunity to present any such text, and has not done so.
Re: I.d
Pro has failed to quote any text within the article that is supportive of his position. I continue to deny that there exists any text within the article that is supportive of Pro's position. Pro has had ample opportunity to present any such text, and has not done so.
Re: I.e
Pro has failed to quote any text within the article that is supportive of his position. I continue to deny that there exists any text within the article that is supportive of Pro's position. Pro has had ample opportunity to present any such text, and has not done so.
Re: I.f
Sources are largely useful for resolving factual or definitional disputes. The facts are largely not in dispute. The definitions are in the debate description. The scope of this debate is rather narrow. Is witchcraft pseudoscience? Witchcraft is defined within, as is pseudoscience. I don't see what sourcing beyond the working definitions is really necessary.
Re: II.a
The definition I provided was the first entry in the dictionary. Pro looked at the same dictionary entry and then went down to the etymology of the word, and then began to use the old meaning of the word for some reason, perhaps somewhat metaphorically. That definition isn't supported by that source, isn't contemporary, and isn't relevant.
Re: II.a.1
See response above.
Re: III.a
Pro alleges that I have the burden to show that witches do not pretend to practice science. Again, Pro is alleging that I have BoP to prove that something did not happen. It is impossible to do that because no evidence is generated when something does not happen. Therefore the BoP is on Pro to prove that something did happen.
Consider a landlord and tenant. The tenant has not paid his rent. The landlord sues the tenant. In court, the landlord alleges that the tenant did not pay. The tenant then says to the court: "The landlord has not proven that I did not pay." OK voters. You're the court. You decide.
As to Con's latter statements in III.a, I direct voters to our working definitions of witchcraft and pseudoscience:
Witchcraft: [OED] The exercise of supernatural power supposed to be possessed by persons in league with the devil or evil spirits. Magic arts.
Pseudoscience: [OED] A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.
There is no overlap between these two definitions. Witchcraft, as it's defined here, does not fall within the scope of pseudoscience, as it's defined here. Pro is merely providing a single example from fiction of a witch who is acting in a somewhat scientific manner. This isn't sufficient.
Re: IV.a
This is off-topic.
Re: IV.a.1
This is off-topic.
Re: IV. b The Stripper
I.a Con seems content to believe that if he disagrees with my arguments/rebuttals, he may merely claim “drafting error,” and he need make no other rebuttal. Sorry, but I will.
I.b Con’s defense of his incomplete definition of “spurious” from his own source: “Copying and pasting the definition from the debate description is not a drafting error.” I disagree, and it is also an error of omission. Note that Con did not rebut my r2, II.a covering the essential nature of etymology, which he dismissed as “not very relevant.” Given Con’s dismissal of sourcing, one should not be surprised by this attitude, but the attitude is also a weak argument.
I.c If Con is unsure about my r3, I.a.2 rebuttal, it his lack of consistency. I repeat: First Con sentence in his r2: “There is no dispute that witchcraft is spurious.” Is there any confusion here that Con agrees by this statement that witchcraft is spurious? No. Second Con sentence in his r2: “The dispute is whether or not witchcraft is a spurious or pretended science.” Is there any confusion here that his second statement contradicts his first? No. The confusion is clearly in Con’s camp.
I.d Con compounds his error by concluding, again, that witchcraft is not a pseudoscience, but offers absolutely no scholastic source to support his opinion, and has stated that he needs no source, and further believes that my sources [r1, [1], [9]], are invalid if they agree with my argument. Not just a weak, but also an absurd and source-lacking argument.
I.e Con claims in his r3 that my focus on the etymology of spurious, to which he refers as “[a]definition [that]isn’t supported by that source, isn’t contemporary, and isn’t relevant.” I will remind readers that the etymology of a word is not a definition; it is relevant sourcing of the word from its original use; in this case, from the 16thcentury. Con cannot relegate etymology to “not relevant,” as I quoted from a Merriam-Webster explanation in my r3, II.a.1 [3].
II Rebuttal: A truck is a dug hole
II.a Con is fond of defining things by what they are not. He claimed in r1, that a truck neither is not a pseudoscience, and in his r2 that saying such was a drafting error, but the error stands regardless of explanation. So, we are to be convinced by then claiming in Con’s r3 that hole-digging is not pseudoscience. I suggest that if digging a hole is an instruction in a magic spell, then, yes, it is, then, witchcraft, just as is a truck if it is party to a magic spell. But, are we concerned with what witchcraft is not, or that merely making the claim without a supporting reference is supposed to be convincing that the argument is valid? I am not convinced, as I have just demonstrated the potential use of either implement in witchcraft. Or, are we to be regaled with another excuse in Con’s r4, that, yet again, a drafting error has been committed, and that neither is not a dug hole a pseudoscience?
III Rebuttal: A title is not text, and must be quoted as a source, or not.
III.a Con repeats a claim that I have not quoted a source [ScienceDirect]. For brevity, review my r2, III.a, and r3, III.a rebuttals that a source need not be quoted to make reference from them in an argument. Nevertheless, I did quote the title of the ScienceDirect article, which stated succinctly the core of my argument that witchcraft, or “magical beliefs,” are pseudoscience, and that college students cannot easily discern them from science, thus supporting my argument that witchcraft is pseudoscience. Since Con dismisses the reference, observe: “A 2012 study suggested pseudoscientific rationales can influence acceptance of reported paranormal phenomena. Using a paranormal belief survey and controlled experiment this work explores the paranormal beliefs and test the effects of three versions of a supernatural news story on undergraduate professional students. One version of the story presented a simple news article, another the same with a pseudoscientific rationale, and another gave a discrediting scientific critique. Results confirmed that many students do hold magical beliefs but discriminated between scientific and pseudoscientific narratives. However, pre-existing paranormal beliefs were associated with an increased likelihood of students finding paranormal reports scientific, believable and credible.”[1]
IV Defense: What do Monty Python, a magical stripper, and Con’s courtroom have in common?
IV.a Con presents a landlord/tenant courtroom dispute in his r3 conclusion. What this has to do with witchcraft is already answered in my r3 by a Monty Python drama, and a poem whose agent is a pseudoscience stripper. You were advised that they were entertaining levity. Con alleges courtrooms are, as well. What any of this has to do with witchcraft, and the nexus of all three fictitious conditions, is the simple proposal presented by this debate: Witchcraft is pseudoscience and superstition.[2]Witchcraft makes the effort to affect the natural world by means that attempt to duplicate the scientific method, as demonstrated by the history of early practice to “engage a cure, if not a prevention for illnesses and natural disasters,”[3]
IV.b “What’s interesting about [witches] is that they are so clearly understood to be positive figures in their society. No king could be without their counsel, no army could recover from a defeat without their ritual activity, no baby could be born without their presence.”[4] As benign as the foregoing history lesson is, as presented evidence in my r1, I.c, there is little doubt that the article from which this, and the previous quote offered in IV.a above derive, indicate a practice of the magic arts that featured a counterfeit of the practice of skeptical questioning, careful observation, and repeated experimentation which is the scientific method. A counterfeit of that method to achieve a similar purpose of “…[engaging]a cure, if not a prevention for illness and natural disasters,” resulting in a practice that “No king could be without their counsel, no army could recover from a defeat without their ritual activity, no baby could be born without their presence.”
IV.c I have offered sources demonstrating that witchcraft practices, by counterfeit, the scientific method, to wit,wikiHow Staff’s How to Write a Spell and Brittany Nightshade’s The Book of Shadows. Observe a segment of my r3, quoted verbatim, as a review:
IV.c.1 The source of relevance is my r2, IV.d [7], “How to Write a Spell.” And, it is my allegation, referring back to the ScienceDirect article [my r3, source [1], that the Spell document makes use of a similar sequence of tasks as is used by the scientific method, to wit, “State your intention,” and “Time your spell,” with the intent, just as with applying the scientific method, to influence the natural world by statement of hypothesis, and definition of a sequence of instructions. As stated in my r1, that method is, 1. Critical questioning with skepticism, 2. Careful observation, and 3. Repeated experimentation. The composition of magic spells, and their practice by witchcraft, employ these same process steps, albeit by corrupt spuriosity, in Nightshade’s Book of Shadows: to wit: “…[1] use these spells, or craft your own rituals. …[2] from my experience when you personalize a spell it only makes it stronger… [3] Only through meditation and practice will your powers grow…”[5]
IV.d Con offers my Description definitions of witchcraft and pseudoscience. Do they lack a nexus, or have I presented the evidence of sources, r1, I.a [1] and r1, I.a.1 [2], as well as those cited above in IV.c.1, as in earlier rounds?
V Conclusion: Resolved: Witchcraft is pseudoscience
V.a I conclude by the challenge to voters to observe repetitive source-lacking allegations over three rounds, to date, by Con, and sourced facts of skeptical questioning, careful observation, and repeated experimentation, and their superstitious use in witchcraft in my foregoing three rounds.
V.b Relative to sourcing, let me remind that Con’s attitude is revealing and spurious: from my r3, I.e:
Con boldly declares in r2, “I generally deny the existence of any text within the source which supports Pro's position. I challenge as unsubstantiated any of Pro's assertions to the contrary.” I suppose that must mean, and I caution readers to take note of this challenge, that when I have cited, as I do below, I.f, the DebateArt Voting Policy, Con considers this quote as denied to exist, because it agrees with my argument. Caveat emptor.
V.c I conclude that, contrary to Con’s allegations that I have not sourced material, have not stayed on topic, and that generally my sources are invalid because they agree with my arguments, that, without allowing my arguments to stand on their own recognizance as has Con, I have offered topical, scholastic sources for my arguments, the purpose of which is to support my arguments.
V.d I therefore conclude that my Burden of Proof is met: Resolved: Witchcraft is pseudoscience, meeting the definitions of these words in the debate Description. I ask for your vote.
Thank you.
I have already explained the drafting error. Further discussion is irrelevant.
Re: I.b
The was the definition of spurious I provided:
Spurious is defined as follows: "Not being what it purports to be; false or fake." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/spurious (Definition from Oxford... believed to be from the same source but not in debate description)
This was the first entry within the dictionary. There is nothing wrong with it.
Pro asserts that copying/pasting a definition from the debate description is a drafting error and also an error of omission. Pro provides no support for this contention.
Pro contends that I did not address etymology. I did simply by stating the obvious: It's not relevant. Why not? Because our working definitions for witchcraft and pseudoscience in no way implicate usage of the etymology of the words that compose those definitions.
Re: I.c
For witchcraft to be "a spurious or pretended science", witchcraft must be a spurious science or a pretended science. It is not sufficient what witchcraft be spurious.
Re: I.d
Whether or not witchcraft is pseudoscience is a matter of working definitions. The definitions from the debate description have been accepted by Pro and myself. I need not go far beyond them, which is why I have not.
Re: I.e
See final paragraph in "Re: I.b"
Re: II.a
The example of hole-digging was used to address Pro's contention that merely attempting influencing the natural world is sufficient satisfy the "science" portion of our working definition for pseudoscience. Pro makes no mention of pseudoscience in this rebuttal. Pro continues to discuss the drafting error and sources argument, which I have already addressed.
Re: III.a
Pro has failed to quote any text within the article that is supportive of his position. I continue to deny that there exists any text within the article that is supportive of Pro's position. Pro has had ample opportunity to present any such text, and has not done so.
Re: IV.a
Pro avoids any discussion of BoP, which was what I was talking about.
Pro states that "Witchcraft is pseudoscience" and again cites https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844017321795 as a source. See "Re: III.a" above.
Pro puts quotation marks around "engage a cure, if not a prevention for illnesses and natural disasters" and follows those quotation marks with "[3]". By doing so, Pro represents that the quoted text exists within the source. The quoted text does not exist within the source. This is a misrepresentation. Pro is merely quoting his opening round 1 argument.
Re: IV.b
Pro claims that his source article - https://allthatsinteresting.com/history-of-witches - shows the existence of "a counterfeit of the practice of skeptical questioning, careful observation, and repeated experimentation which is the scientific method." As Pro has actually quoted text form within the article, I will entertain the claim.
Pro quotes the following from the article:
No king could be without their counsel, no army could recover from a defeat without their ritual activity, no baby could be born without their presence.
This is the only quote from the article which Pro offers in support of his contention. This quote does not support Pro's contention because it does not say anything which could be "a counterfeit practice of skeptical questioning, careful observation, [nor] repeated experimentation."
Lets look at what the paragraphs leading up to that quote:
In the earliest centuries of human civilization, witches were the women who served the goddesses and therefore were revered throughout their communities.
In the Middle East, ancient civilizations not only worshiped powerful female deities, but it was often women who practiced the holiest of rituals. Trained in the sacred arts, these priestesses became known as wise women, and may have been some of the earliest manifestations of what we now recognize as the witch.
These wise women made house calls, delivered babies, dealt with infertility, and cured impotence.
This sounds like faith-healing, and that would be somewhat consistent with our working definition for witchcraft ("The exercise of supernatural power supposed to be possessed by persons in league with the devil or evil spirits. Magic arts.")
Faith-healing is not pseudoscience. Granted, faith-healing is bologna, but there is no representation that faith-healing is scientific.
Recall the examples of counterfeit money and mimicry I provided earlier that Pro dropped. Counterfeit money imitates real money. Certain species of insects will imitate bees and hornets. For something to be pseudoscience, it must imitate science. (recall our working definition for pseudoscience - "a spurious or pretended science") Witchcraft does not imitate science. Ergo, witchcraft is not pseudoscience.
Re: IV.c
No quoted text here = No evidence here = No response necessary.
Re: IV.c.1
The source of relevance is my r2, IV.d [7], “How to Write a Spell.” And, it is my allegation, referring back to the ScienceDirect article [my r3, source [1], that the Spell document makes use of a similar sequence of tasks as is used by the scientific method, to wit, “State your intention,” and “Time your spell,” with the intent, just as with applying the scientific method, to influence the natural world by statement of hypothesis, and definition of a sequence of instructions. As stated in my r1, that method is, 1. Critical questioning with skepticism, 2. Careful observation, and 3. Repeated experimentation. The composition of magic spells, and their practice by witchcraft, employ these same process steps, albeit by corrupt spuriosity, in Nightshade’s Book of Shadows: to wit: “…[1] use these spells, or craft your own rituals. …[2] from my experience when you personalize a spell it only makes it stronger… [3] Only through meditation and practice will your powers grow…”[5]
Pro is blathering here. The science direct article doesn't contain the quoted text. Applying the scientific method (see definition in debate description) does not evince an intent to "influence the natural world by statement of hypothesis." A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation; It's not a means of influencing anything - https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypothesis . Pro got 1, 2, and 3 correct as those are consistent with our working definition.
Pro's example should be rejected as it is a fictional rather than actual example. Even if we accept Pro's example, it fails to conform to the scientific method because there is no evidence of any hypothesis nor critical questioning. Even if we accept Pro's contention that it the example does conform to the scientific method, Pro would merely have demonstrated that a fictional witch is acting scientifically. Even if we accept that, this is but a single example and it would be hasty generalization to conclude that all or most practitioners of witchcraft act scientifically. Even if we accept that they mostly do conduct themselves in a scientific manner, that still doesn't amount to pseudoscience because pseudoscience is a spurious or fake science rather than activity which conforms to the scientific method.
Re: IV.d
See above.
Re: V.a
Pro is merely repeating himself. These issues have been addressed.
Re: V.b
Source issues already addressed. Waste of time to keep talking about the same thing over and over.
Re: V.c
This is Pro straw-manning and making conclusory statements.
Re: V.d
This is conclusory.
Re: Victory conditions / Misc matters
In my opening argument, I argued that it was sufficient for me to show that witchcraft is not pseudoscience in order to show that the resolution was false. Pro dropped this. I brought this to Pro's attention a second time when I stated that "Pro has not disputed that showing that witchcraft is not pseudoscience is sufficient to show that the resolution is false." Pro dropped this, again.
Re: Counterfeits and mimicry
I provided the examples of counterfeit money and mimicry to illustrate why witchcraft does not amount to pseudoscience. Pro dropped this.
Re: General conclusion
First off, this debate left me literally dizzy from going in pointless circles so much.
Not doing point numbering due to the Gish Gallop like nature of this debate; instead I’m just taking highlights from each round.
R1:
I can basically assume pro meets his BoP on 2 out of 3 claims, as Con opens with a statement to immediately limit his attack the affirmative pseudoscience claim. To which we have the OED definition “A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.”
R2:
Pro nitpicks grammar, seeming to miss the point (it’s a bad stance to lead with). Complains of the lack of sources. Then asks that readers re-read some of his claims which touched on pseudoscience. He does better here pointing out that he had sources which referred to it as pseudoscience within the scientific community.
Pro goes on to talk at length about Catherine Bell and a TV show.
Con on the other hand reaffirms his stance and adds a good detail of contrasting it to counterfeit money. He does a strong conclusion using pro’s 19 sources against him in that if there was good evidence, surely pro would have found it?
R3:
A ton of nitpicking before getting back on topic… Ah, a positive review for Catherine Bell’s TV show; it sounds like they pretend to be scientists on TV? Ok, a good note of Monty Python demonstrating the scientific method against witches (for this type of thing, I seriously suggest a link to the video). And ending with an original poem written by pro.
Con basically repeats that pro has BoP to show that witchcraft rises to the level of a pseudoscience, and that he cannot prove the negative (his definitions actually imply this, with “magical arts” instead of “magical sciences,” suggesting that he indeed could prove that it falls below the threshold).
R4:
Pro clarifies why he believes it is a prescience, in that hundreds of years ago people attempted to use it in a similar manner (even without similar results) to things we would use various sciences for today.
Con explains why faith healing does not claim to do the rigorous study and questioning of itself as seen with science. He reminds us “pseudoscience is a spurious or fake science rather than activity which conforms to the scientific method,” which has been implicit throughout his earlier arguments. And of course concludes with pointing back to his R1, and finally complimenting pro’s quality of writing.
---
Arguments:
Con leveraged BoP against one of the claims. Pro came closer to conceding that witchcraft is compatible with the scientific method, than showing it is a pseudoscience (he repeatedly insisted it attempts to duplicate the scientific method). Con on the other hand stuck to his points that it logically is not a pseudoscience, even if a TV witch uses it as a science to change the world.
Sources:
I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that (even if so much focus on that TV show tempted me to wholly ignore sources). I will also note that con easily could have sources witches acting very non-scientific, which would have greatly sped this up.
Let’s see, to cite one: Pro was very creative in using the absence of alien DNA to suggest that witchcraft is indeed superstition, a point not merely dropped, but outright conceded by con.
Conduct:
Leaving this tied. I will note there is a certain degree of irony with pro telling us how to vote, rather than letting things like the imbalance of sources speak for themselves.
S&G:
Also tied. There’s no benefit in obsessing over every typo, when people were still fully understandable without any major distractions from that.
This debate now has a follow up debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate
NOTICE: 2 days remain for voting.
I might get around to this, but I can't promise as I have to try to recover from a terrible weekend, and knock out some important job application activities.
Lol don't debate with him unless you can have lower rounds and character limits. If he's losing he'll just keep blathering nonsense so that voting on it will be too much work.
Anyone going to vote on this?
A brain without a thought but not a thought without a brain. In so much as the thought brain relationship is currently exclusive. (Seemingly)
And I agree, opinions is opinions,
And scholastically supported argument, is a bunch of onions + pi.
And logic seemingly is, whilst simultaneously, seemingly is not.
I will note, for the record, that a claim of logic is not a scholastically-supported argument. Opinion is not necessarily logical. Opinion is a can of beans without an opener. Or, more to the point, a thought without a brain which is, fortunately, not generally contagious.
I sense that you are riled by the logic of my comments.....Very ethanesque.
Enjoy your debate.
and the debate is not enjoined in these comments, but in arguments, and you're not in it, so, ma gavte la nata [or, in the vernacular you understand: put a cork in it.]
A druid in a henge is as dumb or not as the case may be and a druid's belief system is as dumb or not as religion or witchcraft is....And a book is a book, and there are undoubtedly witchcraft books as there are religion books, though none of these books will stand up to scientific scrutiny....Only biased opinion.....As is the nature of debate.
Fortunately my troubles are currently, few and far between.
"Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of this proposal..." Nope. The scientific, or empirical method, to the uninitiated in the trial of faith, cannot, by the means of empiricism alone, demonstrate God. And witchcraft, the dominant subject of the debate, does not go there, either, even though witchcraft is a pseudoscience that attempts to attract the behavior of super-natural beings in the effort to have them be agents of change to the natural world. However, to God, as recognized by adherents to the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Qu'ran, witchcraft is an abomination. [Deuteronomy 18: 10-12, and the Qu'ran, 7:102-124] The gods of witchcraft are fleeting, and will accept any attempt to flatter any one of them by spells, even to the extent of swapping one god for another in any given spell [Nightshade, Brittany, The Book of Shadows, Preface, pg. 10]. Therefore, your claim of inevitability of gods being an unavoidable consequence to this debate is an empty cauldron, as useless to empiricism, and faith, as it is to newt's eyes. Just as stated to you in post #41. Do you have any scholarly references for your claim? I don't buy your opinion. Go find a druid in some henge to tell your troubles.
Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of the proposal.....Belief in a super-nature beyond scientific scrutiny....It's the best strategy in this debate....Unless you are prepared to denounce the super-nature of gods, then you cannot denounce the super-nature of witchcraft, because you are inadvertently proposing that scientific method is unnecessary.
That issue is a more fundamental one regarding exactly what the burdens of debaters are. I don't think Pro disagrees with me on that point based on what he has said here. So, the issue will likely be avoided by mutual agreement between Pro and Con, or he may drop it altogether. If not, then we can get in to it.
So far, Fauxlaw's arguments are more compelling in my eyes.
I meant I'd delete the votes in favor of Death on this debate, obviously I was just kidding anyways.
Duh, it is not like he can vote on his own debate lol
I trust that you wouldn't delete votes unless you held a good faith belief that there was good cause to do so.
i will delete all ur votes
Tis too late
I am extremely curious how you hope to pull this off. Also you still have time to delete that comment
As a mod I approve
https://i.imgur.com/bWJAWnE.jpg
The skelly is hungry
Mad lad.(gender assumed)
What does God have to do with this debate proposal? Entirely off-topic, but nice try. The comparison is witchcraft to science, and naught to do with any alleged divine being of any stripe. Can't rob Peter to pay Paul. By the wauy, just becaue the definition of witchcraft references the devil, the debate does not turn on worship of any being, even Joe Biden.
A tempting debate.
"Witchcraft is pseudo-science and superstition, not compatible with scientific method."....Rather like the basis of the Christian Faith.
If a supernatural god is not pseudo-science then witchcraft is not.....So will you be prepared to denounce the Christian god as pseudo-science?
(and if what I said violated the TOS I'd like to clarify that I would be doing this in roblox)
My theory is that no one wants to out themselves as a witch, and for good reason; if I knew there were witches among me I would burn them at the stake and toss em into the river.
I challenge anyone, even non-witches, to take up their cause. Of what are y'all afraid?
Speaking from experience? (ಠ⌣ಠ)
A lot of witches now are recreational.
I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually takes this one. I'm not sure we have any witches on DART
It could actually be a good part of an argument, to showcase the scientific method.
Another useful source to showcase it:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
Damn! I just watched my DVD of M.Python on Sunday night and... voila, the influence of the subconscious to introduce my debate proposal yesterday. I was going to use that scene in my argument, but you blew it for me!!!
just kidding, but I did watch the movie on Sunday, and who knows if it generated my debate? More mysticism than empricism, I'm afraid.
At least the identification of witches uses the scientific method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
I don't think there are a lot of witches in DArt, consider this is a place of rationalism and logics, not rituals and emotions. I think there are only a handful of them at most.
Well it might. I certainly receive a lot of grief from the atheist community, as do others of my stripe. I believe in equal-opportunity tick-off.
However, my proposal is not an either/or proposition. I am clearly arguing that witchcraft is both pseudoscience AND superstition, so my BoP is that both apply. ButI I will not argue the case here.
This is going to tick off DART's witch community.
However it is superstition though, and it is not compatible with the scientific method. It not being a pseudoscience does not make the other two false.
That brings up an interesting K someone could run: That witchcraft does not rise to the level of being even a pseudoscience, therefore the resolution is false.
I just watched tens of videos about witches then came to a conclusion: Witchcraft is not trying to be scientific because they are rituals and traditions and maybe beliefs. It couldn't even qualify as a pseudoscience because it is not trying to give a system of explanation to anything.
I see some ground for the contender to have a case, but it would border on semantics. Were I to argue this, I would build a case around how much witchcraft would benefit from using the scientific method (which I would expect pro to counter to pointing out the key benefit being when it turns away from such stupidity, via all the experiments having negative outcomes).
Neatly I had a debate a few months ago, basically on if medicine is comparable with the scientific method:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists
I know I've seen DNA evidence previously, but I'll have to find it again. I don't think any volume I have in my library discusses it. As I remember, it was very curious to me. It was South American in origin, and the link was mitochondrial, but not through Leah [mother of Judah, therefore, of Jewish derivation, and from Judea, but further north; Galilean, and potentially from Rachel, mother of Joseph, and grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The cross figure, while not having Jewish origins, does have Viking linkage [different shape, with all legs basically equal], and we now know early Scandies, even pre-Christianity, did cross the ocean in antiquity, so that may be the link
Quetzalcoatl, the main Aztec god, was depicted as light-skinned and bearded by a culture that had little-to-no facial hair and darker skin. I've also seen people cite the use of crosses as symbols in certain Native American tribes as evidence, but that seems false to me as the cross has no Judaic connections and would not be associated with Christianity for several hundred years, as it didn't yet exist.
As far as I know, DNA tests haven't shown anything, but I haven't looked into it very fully. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is fairly vague when it comes to geography, especially distances, but I have seen the Central American region as a top candidate for matching the descriptions that are given, namely, a sea on each side.
Very interesting... thank you for these book recommendations!
Is there historical evidence of these Native American Jews (I'm not really sure if that's the correct term) outside of the Book of Mormon?
I hold Judaism in high esteem. You would find it is also honored highly within the pages of the Book of Mormon, which, if you've never read it, reads biblically [or by the Torah, as well] in terms of structure [book, chapter, verse], and actually records the history of a group of people in the timeframe of the Babylonian invasion, occupation, and displacement of Judea and Galilee, circa 600 BCE, and continues, mostly chronologically, for the next 1,000 years, to ~400 CE. These people escaped Jerusalem [they were descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph, son of Jacob], and sailed to the Americas. Where they landed is not described. They followed the Law of Moses, but looked forward to the advent of Christ, the Messiah, whose visit among them following his resurrection is recorded. It is believed that some of the Native Americans were descendant from this people. I encourage a read, not as an effort of convincing, but as a superb history.
As for mistakes, I agree. We're on the same page.
I also write R1s before I start debates. Working under a timeframe is stressful so I like to take advantage of when I don't have that.
Making mistakes is the best way to learn, and any debate where you learn from mistakes is a win regardless of voter outcome. It's not like I did perfectly either - I'll have some things to carry over with me into future debates, too.
I thought it was a very good debate, and I learned a lot of very interesting things about Christianity from you as a result of it. I was raised culturally Jewish and have been drifting in and out of the religion for some time, but I've also always been fascinated by the story of Jesus and his teachings. The quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” was a quote that you shared that I really liked in particular. I'm still excited to see what the voters say whether they vote in your favor or in mine.
Just the kind of challenge I relish trying. First personal rule: I am not afraid of failure. But then, I actually have several first personal rules. One of them is: I fear failure. When I figurer out that conundrum, I think my mission in life is complete.
Thanks for that.
To your question, I never launch a debate without having at least a first round composed. It may alter a bit before publication, particularly if there are negotiated factors created pre-argument phase based on my description - something I recognize I did poorly in our debate Regardless, other than our kerfuffle, I thought it was a good debate with good arguments both sides.
Who in the world can defend this? almost impossible.
Statistical hypothesis? Or, rather, statistical data in a hypothesis? There's corkscrew logic. But, even corkscrews have a logic, so...