Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5901
There are more ways to know the truth than by physical evidence.
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...
MAV99
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1242
rating
388
debates
39.43%
won
Description
I will argue that physical evidence, namely that which science has limited itself to study, is not the only way to know something with certitude. I will be taking the pro side. Con must show that what I present, is somehow doubtable in what it says.
Round 1
Thank you Best.Korea for accepting this debate. I look forward to engaging in an intellectual dispute on what knowledge is and how we can have certitude of it.
To start off I would like to be clear: I am arguing that reasoned-to-conclusions that, by their very nature cannot be physical evidence, are still legitimate ways to know that something is true. This does not mean that I am denying the role of observations, experiments, or physical evidence in knowledge,(evidence by the fact that I show its role in the process) but rather that there is more to it than just that.
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. As such this debate is not about sensitive knowledge.
But the intellectual knowledge I argue is not physical in its nature and therefore cannot require physical evidence to verify it. Intellectual knowledge is another way of saying that we understand something. 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."
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/
Once in the brain A process called "plasticity" happens, which is described as the ability of the nervous system to change its activity in response to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, functions, or connections. Google definition of plasticity. oogle.com/search?q=what+is+plasticity+in+the+brain&sca_esv=8d12fa747601ad8a&rlz=1C1CHBF_esMX866MX866&ei=XKv3ZZaLBN6Lur8P-ZSU-A0&oq=what+is+plasticity+in+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFndoYXQgaXMgcGxhc3RpY2l0eSBpbiAqAggCMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEiYGVC3BVjbCnABeAGQAQCYAWSgAYADqgEDMy4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIFoAK0A8ICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLADmAMAiAYBkAYKkgcDMS40oAeVGA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
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 since it is only the first step to knowledge.
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 immaterial by which we live. We abstract and understand what something is which we know by sensitive knowledge.
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 in quality like learning something.
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 the very definition of reason we can abstract from the physical universe and study the abstract idea as abstract giving us further knowledge of the concept itself. This is exactly what metaphysics actually studies. For example we can look at "goodness" and use logic to arrive at a better understanding of it. But we cannot give any physical evidence of goodness itself. same thing with any other abstract 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 development 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 measurement 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 which in this case is the thing changing.
Thus, there are knowable truths, verified by the use of logic, that do not require physical evidence to verify it.
"There are more ways to know the truth than by physical evidence"
My opponent is yet to show an example of a man who has never seen any physical evidence in his life, yet knows "the truth".
My opponent fails to understand that all "logical axioms" he mentions are only confirmed to be true because they were observed in physical world. How else would you know they are true?
Definition of true:
in accordance with reality
Since "physical" is what reality is, it would be absurd to suggest that you can know about reality without having any evidence from reality.
Further, all logic is based on two premises and conclusion. The only way to prove a premise is through observation in real world.
If you say that premise 2 proves premise 1, then you need to prove premise 2. If you say premise 3 proves premise 2, then you need to prove premise 3. And so on to infinity.
All logic on its own is either circular(fallacy), infinite(absurd), or unquestioned(unproved).
The only way, to actually prove any premise in logical structure, is by observation, which is how scientists have always proved things.
The conclusion, which follows from premises, is a logical law observed to be true in reality.
Thus, any claim, any premise, any conclusion... in order to be proved true(in accordance with reality), must be observed in reality.
Thus, if my opponent accepts that truth is what reality is, he cannot at the same time claim that he can derive truth from something else, from non-truth(non-reality).
Round 2
Thank you Best.Korea for your answer but I am afraid you have missed the point in what I am arguing.
Con has said:
My opponent is yet to show an example of a man who has never seen any physical evidence in his life, yet knows "the truth".
This has nothing to do with what I am saying and at best it is exaggerating what the title says.
My opponent fails to understand that all "logical axioms" he mentions are only confirmed to be true because they were observed in physical world. How else would you know they are true?
My argument is not about logical axioms. I brought them up to show that those are the tools to further knowledge, which leads to truths that cannot be verified by physical evidence. They are tools, not the conclusions themselves.
Definition of true:in accordance with realitySince "physical" is what reality is, it would be absurd to suggest that you can know about reality without having any evidence from reality.
I have argued this above in round 1 which Con did not address. Also no, reality is not just physical. Go ahead and try touching justice itself. or seeing it. You cannot.
The only way to prove a premise is through observation in real world.
I disagree with this as it is perfectly logical to use a conclusion as a further premise in an argument. All logic books say that. The conclusion does not necessarily need to be observed as I argued above.
All logic on its own is either circular(fallacy), infinite(absurd), or unquestioned(unproved).
Wut?!?! Do you know what logic is? It is a set of rules and principles derived from axioms that maintains reason in a thought process.
The only way, to actually prove any premise in logical structure, is by observation, which is how scientists have always proved things.The conclusion, which follows from premises, is a logical law observed to be true in reality.Thus, any claim, any premise, any conclusion... in order to be proved true(in accordance with reality), must be observed in reality.
Firstly I would say that axioms, which are perfectly logical to use in a premise, cannot be proven. That is why they are called axioms.
Also, the conclusion, as you said here "is a logical law observed to be true in reality" is first off not the sense I am speaking of when I say "physical evidence" and secondly, you cannot quantify the law itself. You cannot quantify the laws of physics themselves for example. You can quantify matter that is under those laws but not the law itself, because the law itself is an abstract understanding that only exists in the mind. You cannot observe that physically.
Like I said, I don't think you understood what I said above. You are not really addressing my points but rather throwing in red herrings or at best committing the "I heard this" fallacy. a fallacy that basically focuses on a point that was said outside of the context it was said in and/or disregarding what came after.
Thus, if my opponent accepts that truth is what reality is, he cannot at the same time claim that he can derive truth from something else, from non-truth(non-reality).
I most certainly do not accept what CON thinks to be only the truth. Ironic that Con would use this argument after saying this:
There is no such thing as truth, since people dont have all knowledge.Most people dont even have the most basic knowledge about what truth even is.They just ramble nonsense and repeat what they are told, and call that "thinking".
which at best shows CON has no problem contradicting themself. You will notice this is in a thread where I asked for definitions from debaters to get a better idea of what they are talking about.
Allow me to show CON what it is I am arguing again:
I said in the description:
I will argue that physical evidence, namely that which science has limited itself to study, is not the only way to know something with certitude.
I said in round 1:
I am arguing that reasoned-to-conclusions that, by their very nature cannot be physical evidence, are still legitimate ways to know that something is true.
I also said in the comments:
I am more arguing that abstract principles can lead also to truths that cannot be demonstrated in physical experiments by science.
All of which say very clearly what I am arguing.
With that I extend my argument since it was not addressed at all.
My opponent really doesnt know what he is talking about. Nothing to be surprised about there.
I expected this level when my opponent used De Anima (literally a work of fiction) as his source.
Then my opponent tells that I didnt address his round 1, but there is almost nothing to address there. First half of the round talks of only definitions and even things irrelevant to topic.
The other half of round are some retarded claims.
For example, my opponent says that free will exists, but at the same time he says that it cannot be proved that it exists.
Then in this round my opponent extends on retarded claims:
Do you know what logic is? It is a set of rules and principles derived from axioms that maintains reason in a thought process.
This literally isnt even a counter to my argument, but then my opponent extends and counters himself for some reason:
My argument is not about logical axioms. I brought them up to show that those are the tools to further knowledge, which leads to truths....I would say that axioms, which are perfectly logical to use in a premise, cannot be proven. That is why they are called axioms.
So let me get this straight. My opponent first says that logic is based on axioms, and then he says that axioms cannot be proven.
So logic can never be proved?
And by the way, axioms are called axioms because they are observed everywhere in reality, thus proved over and over.
My opponent doesnt know what logic is, which is why he doesnt understand that premises and conclusion are what logic is. Logic is merely the expression of relation between things expressed through logical connectives.
My opponent, when reading works of fiction such as De Anima, has confused fiction with reality. So he thinks his fiction is true and that science is flawed because it didnt prove his fiction.
Then my opponent, for some God knows what reason, goes to quote me from my posts in the forum, a quote which is even irrelevant to this debate.
Maybe my opponent doesnt understand that one person can defend opposite views. In fact, it was Hegel who established that truth is derived from arguing of opposite premises.
My opponent should probably read actual works on logic.
Reading works of fiction like De Anima and believing everything in it without proof, and then saying that science is flawed because it didnt prove your work of fiction, is like me saying that science is flawed because it didnt prove Harry Potter.
Now, I say that premise needs to be proved, and my opponent responds by saying that conclusion doesnt need to be observed(proved). Obviously false. If we had no proof that conclusion follows from premises, then all logic would essentially be not-proved, thus not true, since "true" by definition must be proved and observed. So if my opponent wants to argue that logic is not true, he only destroys his own case, since he is the one who argues that there is some truth which doesnt need proof.
He talks of justice, yet justice is proved to not exist in this world.
To remind ourselves again, my opponent claimed that he has a way to derive truth other than from physical evidence, yet all he has shown so far either are works of fiction either still depends on physical evidence to be proved true.
It was my simple request from my opponent to show us a man who knows the truth yet has never observed anything and never gained any information from reality by using his senses.
The word "true", being defined as "in accordance with reality", cannot at the same time be "not in accordance with reality".
Thus, it is not possible to prove something as true unless it is proved that it is in accordance with reality.
But how do you prove that something is in accordance with reality? By proving that it exists in reality, which is proved only through observation.
Thus, my opponent, when failing to find his works of fiction anywhere in reality, naturally blames the scientific method and calls it flawed.
However, my opponent has not demonstrated any other method for obtaining truth. Should my opponent demonstrate a different method for obtaining truth than the one used by science, I am even ready to concede the debate and abandon the use of science and its observations, but given how revolutionary such new non-scientific method would be, it probably wont happen in the next round just as it didnt happen in previous two.
Round 3
I would advise my opponent to perhaps make the effort to read what I have said and address that, since this is the last round and they have not actually targeted my arguments.
Since Con has not addressed my actual arguments I will once again extend my arguments from Round 1 before I begin to address Con's points that he made in Round 2.
These arguments have not been addressed and, as I have said multiple times, demonstrate that physical evidence is not the only way that something can be known. If it helps Con, My argument consists in showing what science has shown us, then I used philosophy from there to show my ultimate point.
Now, On to Con's points;
Firstly I will address a huge misconception about one of my references.
I expected this level when my opponent used De Anima (literally a work of fiction) as his source.
DE ANIMA is a philosophical work written by Thomas Aquinas who was commentating on Aristotle. It is very far from a work of fiction. What Con has said above is simply a bold and ignorant statement that at best shows they did not actually look up the reference.
Then my opponent tells that I didnt address his round 1, but there is almost nothing to address there. First half of the round talks of only definitions and even things irrelevant to topic.The other half of round are some retarded claims.For example, my opponent says that free will exists, but at the same time he says that it cannot be proved that it exists.
The definitions are there to help you understand what I am saying.
The other supposedly "retarded claims" (what those were Con was not kind enough to point out) support the argument and show the progression of knowledge to ultimately show my whole point.
I mentioned free will in parenthesis to further show that there is action beyond sensitive knowledge. I never said it cannot be proved to exist. In fact my whole argument is showing that it is something that would have to be understood, not itself observed. Plus, this debate is not about free will. It was a side point to further demonstrate what I am ultimately saying.
Then in this round my opponent extends on retarded claims:Do you know what logic is? It is a set of rules and principles derived from axioms that maintains reason in a thought process.This literally isnt even a counter to my argument, but then my opponent extends and counters himself for some reason:My argument is not about logical axioms. I brought them up to show that those are the tools to further knowledge, which leads to truths....I would say that axioms, which are perfectly logical to use in a premise, cannot be proven. That is why they are called axioms.So let me get this straight. My opponent first says that logic is based on axioms, and then he says that axioms cannot be proven.So logic can never be proved?And by the way, axioms are called axioms because they are observed everywhere in reality, thus proved over and over.
Perhaps Con should have given the quote which I referenced when saying that. Here it is:
All logic on its own is either circular(fallacy), infinite(absurd), or unquestioned(unproved).
Which to one who has studied logic, would make them think that Con does not know what logic is. So I gave a working definition to help them.
So logic can never be proved?
Firstly, No. The axioms cannot be proved.
Secondly, you are confusing "proof by observation", "proof by reasoning" and "proof from a first principle" These are three different kinds of proof.
"proof by observation" is the one science uses.
"proof by reason" is the one philosophy uses.
"proof from a first principle (a.k.a. axiom)" is used by both. Notice that science takes for granted that a thing is what it is. Axioms cannot be proved strictly speaking. We can demonstrate by arguing the opposite would be absurd. But there is no major or minor premise that together can prove that a thing is what it is. Because it is an axiom. It is a naturally known truth.
And by the way, axioms are called axioms because they are observed everywhere in reality, thus proved over and over.
No that is not why they are called axioms. They are called that because they are self evident truths that become the basis of all reasoning. And where do you see the axiom "a thing is what it is" walking around?
We observe those things that allow us to abstract and understand these axioms. You cannot prove the axiom itself by observation. They are by nature an understanding in the intellect.
My opponent doesnt know what logic is, which is why he doesnt understand that premises and conclusion are what logic is. Logic is merely the expression of relation between things expressed through logical connectives.
Logic is definitely more than just premises and conclusions. Have you heard of suppositio? Significatio? Simple apprehension? Proposition? Reasoning? Judgement? All these are different parts to logic. In fact, that is only touching on formal logic. There is also material logic.
So he thinks his fiction is true and that science is flawed because it didnt prove his fiction.
I never said science was flawed. This is a strawman that my opponent has conjectured for whatever reason. I would like to see what I said made Con think that. Science is supreme in its own realm. But it has limited its realm to "proof by observation" only, which does not make it, therefore, an authority on those things that exist that are not directly observable themselves.
Then my opponent, for some God knows what reason, goes to quote me from my posts in the forum, a quote which is even irrelevant to this debate.
The quote was following upon what you brought up in the debate, namely:
Definition of true:in accordance with reality
Which was to demonstrate that Con has no problem being contradictory. And yes, because Con wanted to bring in the definition of truth, Con seemed to think it was relevant enough to the debate. I simply followed up with it.
Maybe my opponent doesnt understand that one person can defend opposite views. In fact, it was Hegel who established that truth is derived from arguing of opposite premises.
You either defend the existence of truth, or you are rightly held as absurd. Even Hegel in your quote above assumes that truth exists. Con simply denied it in the quote that I provided from the forum.
My opponent should probably read actual works on logic.
I have. I have a degree in logic.
Now, I say that premise needs to be proved, and my opponent responds by saying that conclusion doesnt need to be observed(proved). Obviously false. If we had no proof that conclusion follows from premises, then all logic would essentially be not-proved, thus not true, since "true" by definition must be proved and observed. So if my opponent wants to argue that logic is not true, he only destroys his own case, since he is the one who argues that there is some truth which doesnt need proof.
Once again, Con is confusing different kinds of proof. Also, I never said the conclusion does not need to be proved. I am saying there is a different kind of proof that is different than "proof by observation."
He talks of justice, yet justice is proved to not exist in this world.
I hold this absurd firstly because, being a universal statement, it implies that there has never been a just act which is clearly false, and secondly because you cannot prove something does not exist except metaphysical contradictions that exist in the same way and at the same time. So unless you can show how justice is a metaphysical contraction all by itself...
It was my simple request from my opponent to show us a man who knows the truth yet has never observed anything and never gained any information from reality by using his senses.
If you read my first round, you will notice that I am not arguing the role of senses to begin knowledge does not need to exist. I am arguing that after that we can take our understanding of something and reason further, abstractly, to arrive at a better and more complete understanding. These understandings, by their very nature, cannot be observed with our senses. They are proven by "proof by reason"
If it helps Con to understand better, My first round is arguing from a philosophical point of view after showing how far science has brought us.
Thus, it is not possible to prove something as true unless it is proved that it is in accordance with reality.
Not all reality is observable. There are real things that exist that no one has sensed. Like virtue.
By proving that it exists in reality, which is proved only through observation.
I deny this in light of what I have said above.
Thus, my opponent, when failing to find his works of fiction anywhere in reality, naturally blames the scientific method and calls it flawed.
This is at best an ad hominem and strawman fallacy.
However, my opponent has not demonstrated any other method for obtaining truth. Should my opponent demonstrate a different method for obtaining truth than the one used by science, I am even ready to concede the debate and abandon the use of science and its observations, but given how revolutionary such new non-scientific method would be, it probably wont happen in the next round just as it didnt happen in previous two.
I pointed out in Round 1 I pointed out that Metaphysics is a method of obtaining truth by "proof by reason". In fact, Philosophy is this whole kind of study. While I certainly suggest this study for Con, I most certainly do not suggest that they abandon science as that is also a very good and legitimate means to grow in knowledge since it can prove by observation. But like I said, reality is not just physical. There is more to it than that. Virtue itself is not physical. A things form is not physical, principle of physics themselves are not physical. axioms are not physical. Thus proving my point further.
I thank Con for what effort they did give and they for the most part get a participation medal for this debate.
P.S.I am not trying to be snarky or anything, but to the voters, is there anyone who would like to actually debate me on this topic? This one was quite a dud for me as they never actually addressed my argument.
My opponent again goes to the world of fiction and extends his imaginary arguments.
I have a degree in logic.
Thats not an argument. They really give a degree to anyone these days.
DE ANIMA is a philosophical work written by Thomas Aquinas who was commentating on Aristotle. It is very far from a work of fiction. What Con has said above is simply a bold and ignorant statement that at best shows they did not actually look up the reference.
Since my opponent never proved any claim from the mentioned work of fiction called "De Anima", one can only conclude that its a work of fiction, and saying that its a "philosophical work" doesnt change that.
I mentioned free will in parenthesis to further show that there is action beyond sensitive knowledge. I never said it cannot be proved to exist. In fact my whole argument is showing that it is something that would have to be understood, not itself observed. Plus, this debate is not about free will. It was a side point to further demonstrate what I am ultimately saying.
Since my opponent never proved the existence of free will in this debate, we can discard this imaginary argument too.
Which to one who has studied logic, would make them think that Con does not know what logic is. So I gave a working definition to help them.
My opponent fails to make an argument, as his definition didnt negate anything I said.
Firstly, No. The axioms cannot be proved.
They are observed everywhere in reality, in programming, in repeatable results from experiments...
Secondly, you are confusing "proof by observation", "proof by reasoning" and "proof from a first principle" These are three different kinds of proof.
Reasoning and first principle are derived and proved only from observing themselves in physical world. There is not a single line, law or method in either of those which wasnt observed and proved while being accepted as true. It is a contradiction to say that something which depends completely on observation to be proved can somehow be proved without observation.
"proof by reason" is the one philosophy uses.
You can use reason incorrectly in philosophy, as demonstrated by De Anima. As mentioned before, reason depends on observation in order for reasoning premises to be proved true.
"proof from a first principle (a.k.a. axiom)" is used by both.
Axiom is also observed everywhere in reality.
Notice that science takes for granted that a thing is what it is.
Science takes for granted what it can observe. Not sure how that helps your case.
Axioms cannot be proved strictly speaking.
My opponent confuses his position for mine. His position is the one trying to prove truth without physical evidence, and now he says that axioms cannot be proved.
He also said that logic(reasoning) depends on axioms as basis.
So even if I were to accept my opponent's argument that axioms cannot be proved, and thus that reasoning cannot be proved, then two out of three mentioned types of proof become invalid and the only thing left is observation, thus physical proof.
We can demonstrate by arguing the opposite would be absurd.
This is circular logic. My opponent says that logic depends on axioms, and then he says he can use logic to demonstrate axioms.
But there is no major or minor premise that together can prove that a thing is what it is.
Only if you ignore all the scientific evidence from observation of repeatable results. Repeatable results wouldnt be possible if things werent what they are. My opponent here literally argues that we cant disprove magic and magical transformations. If this is his "ultimate point", then his ultimate point is even irrelevant to debate, since he is supposed to prove that something can be proved true without observation.
Because it is an axiom. It is a naturally known truth.
My opponent didnt prove that axiom is a "naturally known truth". For all we know, people arent born with that knowledge.
And where do you see the axiom "a thing is what it is" walking around? We observe those things that allow us to abstract and understand these axioms.
So my opponent first says that we cant observe axioms, then he says we can derive axioms from observation of things. So essentially, he concedes that axioms are proved only through observation, which is something he denied for whole debate for some reason.
Logic is definitely more than just premises and conclusions. Have you heard of suppositio? Significatio? Simple apprehension? Proposition? Reasoning? Judgement? All these are different parts to logic. In fact, that is only touching on formal logic. There is also material logic.
My opponent doesnt seem to understand that everything he mentions there is made of premises, which form conclusions. Maybe my opponent would be so kind to demonstrate to us the example of logic which has no premises. Now that would be amazing!
I never said science was flawed.
You are trying to prove magic and works of fiction here, and saying that science failed to prove them but that they are still true. How is that anything but just a mockery of science?
which does not make it, therefore, an authority on those things that exist that are not directly observable themselves.
The extending of observation very much proves that there were things which werent previously observed, but now are. Thus, observation allows us to learn that there are things which we cant yet fully observe, but we know about them from partial observation.
However, while my opponent says that science is not an authority on things it cant observe, he fails to tell us what is the authority on not observed things. We already proved that reasoning and axioms are just made of premises proved to be true by observation. So what is this "observation-less" authority my opponent mentions?
The quote was following upon what you brought up in the debate, namely...Which was to demonstrate that Con has no problem being contradictory. And yes, because Con wanted to bring in the definition of truth, Con seemed to think it was relevant enough to the debate. I simply followed up with it.
Being completely contradictory means that at least one of my claims is right. Thus, if my opponent were to argue that my one claim is false, he then concedes that my other claim is true. The only question is which claim does my opponent concede to, the one where I say truth doesnt exist or the one where I say truth is something which is in accordance with reality?
With no other definitions of truth given so far, voters very much have to accept my definition.
My opponent seems to argue that definition of truth is irrelevant to this debate, but this debate is literally about truth.
My opponent seems to have some great delusion that he is arguing with me in the forum, so he brings up my claims from forum. I cant imagine what can possibly make person do that. I understand that most philosophers arent exactly right in the head.
You either defend the existence of truth, or you are rightly held as absurd. Even Hegel in your quote above assumes that truth exists. Con simply denied it in the quote that I provided from the forum.
As explained previously, being contradictory means that at least one of my claims is correct, while neither of the claims there really help my opponent's case. So if my opponent seeks truth, he should accept Hegel's view on arguing contradictory premises to reach truth, as well as embrace the challenge to the truth itself, unless my opponent is afraid.
My opponent seems to think that forum is part of this debate. He seems to be focusing on me instead of arguments in this debate. I dont know what drives people to do this. Some insanity, probably.
I hold this absurd firstly because, being a universal statement, it implies that there has never been a just act which is clearly false
Justice by definition is not any kind of "a single act", but a system where all people are treated according to an equal standard.
and secondly because you cannot prove something does not exist
This is false. Something is proved to not exist if it contradicts with proved premise.
Justice, by definition, contradicts with what we see in reality, thus justice doesnt exist in reality.
I am arguing that after that we can take our understanding of something and reason further, abstractly, to arrive at a better and more complete understanding. These understandings, by their very nature, cannot be observed with our senses.
All laws of reasoning(correct understanding) are observed and proved in reality by senses.
Not all reality is observable. There are real things that exist that no one has sensed. Like virtue.
I can sense my virtue very well. Not sure why you cant sense yours.
reality is not just physical. There is more to it than that.
Like what?
Virtue itself is not physical.
Unproven claim.
A things form is not physical
Unproven claim.
principle of physics themselves are not physical
Sure they are. They exist in reality and are proved through physical evidence.
Now, if this is the best that "logic degree" gets you, I suggest to other people not to pay too much for such a degree.
You dont have to invest so much in arguments if you are going to leave it a tie. Still, good work.
Nah, 1 hour was enough time.
It's actually been on my how to list for a while, but kept putting it off.
. . . I 'do think only getting to it in the last hour of voting, hurt my vote quality though.
RFV 1/3
RFD Continued
Pro arguments of forms of proof was convincing, but debate 'did have problem of being a bit open to interpretation.
If one wants consensus of X to be held as standard, maybe it needs to be in description.
Con offered their own views, in large part very materialistic in relation to human interaction with reality.
I thought both sides had points, though Cons was a bit extreme in some places.
Pro Round 1
Reading
Pro argues more paths to truth than physical evidence.
Argues reasoned-to-conclusions as an example.
Thinking
One usually 'bases reason of some physical example, I'd think though?
But then, I imagine various proofs 'have been made through reason and logic, before they could be physically proven through the Senses,
Sensitive Knowledge being where further down Pro argues "physical evidence reigns supreme"
Con Round 1
Reading
Con seems to have a different idea in mind for what knowing by physical evidence means.
Thinking
Debate description is a bit vague,
"I will argue that physical evidence, namely that which science has limited itself to study, is not the only way to know something with certitude. I will be taking the pro side. Con must show that what I present, is somehow doubtable in what it says."
Better to define debate and terms in description, rather than round 1.
Con argument is a bit on the extreme side,
And makes mistake in my view of arguing we need experience to function,
Con apparently positing a person born without ever experiencing physical reality, and arguing said person would know nothing.
But I do not think Pro is arguing that,
After all, people do weird logic thoughts all the time,
All swans are white as an example.
Course Con is arguing the extreme, how could one think of said logic without swans or whiteness?
Course one could just use All As are B as an example.
Reading
Con asks for Pro to give an example of logical axiom proven without physical world observation.
RFV 2/3
Pro Round 2
Reading
Argues you cannot quantify laws.
Argues they are abstractions.
Thinking
I think Pro would have done well to show some reasoned to conclusions as evidence.
Reading
Argues justice as something not of physical evidence.
Thinking
'Short example though, not everyone has reading in philosophy. Many people who argue against Socrates bring up 'examples/physical happenings to argue justice.
Con Round 2
Reading
Claims De Anima (On the Soul) by Aristotle to be a work of fiction.
Thinking
A glance at first few Google results say it is not a work of fiction,
Glancing about some more, it 'does look to be more thoughts about how this world works, philosophy, observation, reasoning. Not that I agree or disagree with it, but it's not 'fiction.
Reading
"retarted claims"
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
Argues axioms are observed.
Argues Pro says logic cannot be proven. Quotes Pro.
Argues "Logic is merely the expression of relation between things"
"My opponent should probably read actual works on logic."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
forum quote,
Thinking
Eh, Con doesn't 'have to stick from any definitions or arguments he has made elsewhere on the site or internet, unless they are question of the debate, I think.
Reading
Justice
Thinking
Eh, controversial take.
Reading
"Works of fiction"
Thinking
Repeated claim that at a glance is false, hurts you in arguments.
Though one 'might argue it is fiction, that takes 'argument, not claim.
Reading
Asks for extreme example again of person without 'any experience.
Uses round 1 definition against Pro
"Definition of true:
in accordance with reality"
Thinking
Though I'm not sure that concepts and axioms are not part of reality.
Not sure they're 'physical though.
RFV 3/3
Pro Round 3
Reading
Axioms
Thinking
Merrium Webster says "In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful."
I don't quite 'get it myself, even parallel lines not crossing, people usually 'look a bit to see if they would. But eh.
Reading
Pro argues along what seems to fit common understanding of the term axiom.
Argues different forms of proof, observation, reasoning, first principle.
Argues Con 'asked for definition of truth.
Thinking
Glancing at comments, this appears true, but it is 'still a definition used in debate.
But 'again, people might disagree what reality is, concepts such as justice or math?
Reading
Argues Con derailed the debate some.
Thinking
Well, this is why for people who make 'or accept debates, sometimes should hash out details first.
Con Round 3
Reading
Claims De Anima is a work of fiction.
Thinking
Ehh, there 'is argument that people should judge debate by what the debaters say,
But there is also argument of common sense, common knowledge, easily accessed information.
If a debater included claim that Churchill was instrumental in WW2, they would not need to respond to opponent claims that Churchill did not exist and that first debater first needs to prove Churchill exists.
The whole De Anima being a work of fiction is really a sidebar though. As Pro uses it more to accentuate their arguments.
Reading
Argues axioms are observable by repeated experiments.
Claims that if axioms cannot be proven, then resultant claims from them are invalid.
Argues their being contradictory throughout debate
"afraid" 'insanity"
Thinking
Conduct hits.
Reading
Argues more for physical observing.
Thinking
'Some merit to argument, but it is in a way attacking an argument that Pro is not making.
Reading
"Now, if this is the best that "logic degree" gets you, I suggest to other people not to pay too much for such a degree."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Another bump a day or two ago would have been nice. Just saw this now, and there's not nearly enough time to properly review and vote on it.
Votes please!
Cant wait for Pro to explain how does he prove a premise without observation.
No. In fact abstract principles are something science cannot strictly prove, but only demonstrate through experiment to be true.
I am not so much arguing that these abstract principles cannot be demonstrated by physical things that science can study; I am more arguing that abstract principles can lead also to truths that cannot be demonstrated in physical experiments by science.
I dont know what counts as physical evidence, and I would hate to accept the debate just to disagree on the definition.
Would "physical evidence" include things like abstract deductive reasoning?