My thesis is simple. Knowledge is a union of the knower and the thing known. If something exists, it is knowable. I believe there to be two types of knowledge. Sensitive and Intellectual. Sensitive knowledge always requires physical evidence to verify its truth. But the intellectual knowledge I argue is not physical in its nature and therefore cannot require physical evidence to verify it. Its veracity will come from the rigorous use of logic based on two main axioms: "a thing is what it is" and "a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect."
To start of my argument I posit this axiom of psychology: All knowledge starts in the senses.
Definitions of my terms.
1. Knowledge: a union of forms
Form: That by which a thing is what it is.
For example water is water by the order between the molecules. This order we call its form.
2. Existence: That which has being in one way or another. As a real thing (like you or me) or as a thing in the mind ( like a dragon)
3. Knowable: An ability to be united to a knowing form.
4. Union: A joining together to be as one.
Sensitive Knowledge
Sensitive knowledge I will argue is the knowledge attained by the sensory receptors in the different parts of the body as they end up in the brain. These sensory receptors first are activated by an outside force and then converted to nervous stimuli which then are sent to the brain.
"Highly specialized
nerve cells called receptors convert the energy associated with mechanical forces, light, sound waves, odorant molecules, or ingested chemicals into neural signals that convey information about the stimulus to the brain." Part II sensation and sensory processing National Library of Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10955/
By this we can understand that the form of a knower (human brain) is united to the form of the stimulus input generated in the body by an extrinsic-to -the -brain object. This is sensitive knowledge. It is on this level that physical evidence reigns supreme in the realm of knowledge and for all purposes here is not what we are debating. However for my argument it is important to understand this step.
Intellectual knowledge
At this point in the debate I have only shown the process of the brain to adapt itself; giving us a physical knowledge of the outside world.
at this point I will break away from science and move on using Philosophical arguments to prove my ultimate thesis: There exists truths that cannot be verified with physical evidence.
I will be using as my main source De Anima a commentary written by Thomas Aquinas on the thought of Aristotle regarding knowledge.
To begin again where I left off, Science has shown to us that we have verifiable knowledge as the study of our brain shows. But it has not been able to detect
reason itself or free will in the functions of the brain,
but only at best their effects. I recommend this link to read the study:
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness-21222/It is here that I will posit what Thomas Aquinas will call a "rational soul" He posits there, as I do here, that it is something inmaterial by which we live.
Definitions of terms
Soul: principle of life
Principle: that from which anything proceeds in anyway whatsoever For example a point is the "principle" of a ray. Essentially it is a starting point for anything. An inquirical principle for example is simply a question using base notions of inquirical nature such as Why, What, where, etc.
Life: That which has any ability of self movement in any way whatsoever. Not necessarily locomotion, which is movement of place, but also movement as in change.
rational: having the ability to reason.
reason: The inference of a third truth from two previously known ones.
Reason is attributed as the function of the soul regarding the intellect. Its conclusions will be regarded as Intellectual knowledge for my argument here.
All these definitions can be found in De Anima Book 2 and 3.
With this I will move forward with my main argument:
By reason we can abstract from the physical universe and study the abstract idea as abstract giving us further knowledge of the concept itself.
The reliability of this knowledge comes from the rigorous use of logic which is the only tool to determine veracity of any non physical entity.
With the devlopement of logic and its system we have been able to arrive at truths that by definition cannot be quantified in physical evidence. Take for example the definition of time: The measuremnet of movement according to before and after. Time is a mental construct that we apply to measure reality. But how do we quantify time itself? You can not. We can only quantify the thing being measured.
Thus, there are knowable truths, verified by the use of logic, that do not require physical evidence to verify it.
REAL-TRUE-FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY
I would, except I agree with your topic of debate.
Nevermind then.
I will accept this debate if you accept my debate - "People always have a moral responsibility to think critically about their actions."
My favorie ways of knowing the truth are via rational evidence and empirical reasoning.