I'm guessing you mean the part where I mentioned "rules of that underlie thinking itself," as in the laws of logic. It is a hard thing to clarify. I had clarified it when I called it "laws that decide the validity of arguments" near the end of the debate. I have probably done the same at other points, but it has been a long time. I'll go in more detail for readers of the comment section since you seem to have understood eventually.
What I meant was that logic, the formalization of reasoning, necessitates rules i.e laws that determine the validity of reasoning. Otherwise, there cannot be a way formalization of reasoning. "Laws" or "rules" may be a harsh way to put it, since they imply a more black and white aesthetic than what PRO is trying to imply with other formal logic systems. What is really meant is that every formal logic system has a consistent interconnected way to decide if an instance of reasoning is valid.
That fact is present in all formal logic systems that PRO has previously mentioned, they may differ in those rules and how said rules functions, but they are there. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a way to test validity in a consistent manner. PRO asserted that other formal logic systems gives credence to the idea that laws of logic do not need to apply, but is false when considering the description of laws of logic given.
My argument, in a more simplified terms, is that these rules are unjustified since it is essentially an unjustified circular argument to justify these rules. For my opponent to use the "bachelors are unmarried men" argument would fall into that pitfall since that is informed by these rules regardless of any formal logic system.
Which part exactly? Was it the third reason? I'd understand the last part of the second reason; I thought them not answering any question was absurd. Or was it just the length?
As the debate and voting have ended, I will continue my tradition of identifying mistakes I had made in these debates. There are four I have made, and will go in order from least to most bad:
My first mistake is agreeing with PRO that traditional knowledge is a justified true belief that does not fall for Gettier's problems. While this might be true for authentic knowledge or about its nature, the debate concerns traditional knowledge; this knowledge necessarily falls for Gettier's cases. The debate topic's intention was particularly for traditional knowledge, not genuine knowledge—thus, using the nature of knowledge is irrelevant and confuses the intended conversation.
Secondly, while I still agree with what I said initially, I should have tackled it from a different angle. Instead of appealing to how there are inherent things that everyone engages in, I should have pointed out that if my argument is sound, then its self-defeating nature is irrelevant since it is a logical necessity. That is especially pertinent since PRO has expressly appealed to other formal logic systems that allow some contradictions to explain those problems. Maybe I should have asked what conditions permit a contradiction that otherwise would be considered invalid in traditional logic still exists. Oh! Wait! That may be too much of a "Q&A," as debates usually do not have questions. (PRO did not answer any questions, responding as if only debates structured as a Q&A have questions.)
Thirdly, I have claimed that I never said that all circular arguments are unwarranted, which is flatly false since I said: "Everything that justifies itself is begging the question." I apologize and feel a little frustrated that I have not done the due diligence to make the debate fully represent the ideas first presented. I see that it confused the conversation and made it unproductive. The claim is also unjustified, as PRO mentioned once in this debate. If they had pushed on this point, I would (and should) have forfeited.
As a step forward, I will explain how I made this mistake and the steps to prevent it from happening again. Definitions, typically, are propositions that have interchangeable subjects and predicates—for example:
All traditional knowledge is a true justified belief. (Original Definition)
Every true justified belief is traditional knowledge. (Valid extrapolation)
However, these definitions (and postulates) are shortenable—for example:
All traditional knowledge is a belief. (Valid extrapolation)
However, definitions cannot be shortened and interchanged:
Every belief is traditional knowledge. (Invalid extrapolation)
Furthermore, as long as my postulates and definitions are reality and the validity of the chain of logic is sufficient, then there is nothing to worry about. But that is wrong. As previously illustrated, I also need to check the continuity of the extrapolations between definitions and the rationale.
That is the mistake; I have shortened and switched the subject and predicate, making the extrapolation of the definition invalid. As a step forward, I will consciously avoid the same misstep. Furthermore, when mentioning if I had made the same claim converser reports I have, I would read my entire argument instead of only looking at definitions and postulates.
Even though I still believe absolute certainty is not possible, I would use different reasoning and different phrasing than I have done here. Maybe I will do a debate on this topic again.
Furthermore, I feel as if skepticism as the only tool to find certainty is a bit absurd. It might be true to the best of human knowledge or human limitations, but the topic of certainty shouldn't be limited to what human capabilities are; there should also be recognizable that other minds - human or otherwise - that can find certainty.
As a person who is not certain that these minds do not exist, I can only recognize that.
I would like to make a correction on my end. The argument I have made has an error, for some reason I presumed that a modification is necessarily caused by substance. Though it can be argued that is the case, as Spinoza does, it should have been substantiated. Instead, I baked that attribute to modification in the definition. That was a mistake I have done.
I am actually not very confident in my position of pluralism or monism, as the reason why I wanted to debate this was because I wanted to see the argument from each side. Of course, that sadly did not happen. Right now, I am leaning for pluralism but still want to think about it some more.
I do not think this effects how things should be voted as I have made my argument and effectively refuted my opponents points. Meanwhile, my opponent made a point - refused to substantiate it - and then tried to run with other points.
I will also be commenting on my other debates and seeing if I had made any mistakes.
Would children also be excluded as a point in this debate? Also, since this is a philosophy thing, I assume a person is just someone who is granted person-hood, meaning, they have a moral consideration.
A collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex. Or, at least, that's how most society has truly used the word "woman."
this was very intellectually stimulating and enlightening, thank you 🙏
What is meant by "religion" and "science" exactly?
Professing my love for you Mall is anything but cowardice!
<3
Love you <3
I'm guessing you mean the part where I mentioned "rules of that underlie thinking itself," as in the laws of logic. It is a hard thing to clarify. I had clarified it when I called it "laws that decide the validity of arguments" near the end of the debate. I have probably done the same at other points, but it has been a long time. I'll go in more detail for readers of the comment section since you seem to have understood eventually.
What I meant was that logic, the formalization of reasoning, necessitates rules i.e laws that determine the validity of reasoning. Otherwise, there cannot be a way formalization of reasoning. "Laws" or "rules" may be a harsh way to put it, since they imply a more black and white aesthetic than what PRO is trying to imply with other formal logic systems. What is really meant is that every formal logic system has a consistent interconnected way to decide if an instance of reasoning is valid.
That fact is present in all formal logic systems that PRO has previously mentioned, they may differ in those rules and how said rules functions, but they are there. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a way to test validity in a consistent manner. PRO asserted that other formal logic systems gives credence to the idea that laws of logic do not need to apply, but is false when considering the description of laws of logic given.
My argument, in a more simplified terms, is that these rules are unjustified since it is essentially an unjustified circular argument to justify these rules. For my opponent to use the "bachelors are unmarried men" argument would fall into that pitfall since that is informed by these rules regardless of any formal logic system.
For anyone reading, tell me if this helps ^^
Ah, that's alright. I hope that wasn't due to mostly me at the very least. What was complicated or hard to understand exactly?
Which part exactly? Was it the third reason? I'd understand the last part of the second reason; I thought them not answering any question was absurd. Or was it just the length?
As the debate and voting have ended, I will continue my tradition of identifying mistakes I had made in these debates. There are four I have made, and will go in order from least to most bad:
My first mistake is agreeing with PRO that traditional knowledge is a justified true belief that does not fall for Gettier's problems. While this might be true for authentic knowledge or about its nature, the debate concerns traditional knowledge; this knowledge necessarily falls for Gettier's cases. The debate topic's intention was particularly for traditional knowledge, not genuine knowledge—thus, using the nature of knowledge is irrelevant and confuses the intended conversation.
Secondly, while I still agree with what I said initially, I should have tackled it from a different angle. Instead of appealing to how there are inherent things that everyone engages in, I should have pointed out that if my argument is sound, then its self-defeating nature is irrelevant since it is a logical necessity. That is especially pertinent since PRO has expressly appealed to other formal logic systems that allow some contradictions to explain those problems. Maybe I should have asked what conditions permit a contradiction that otherwise would be considered invalid in traditional logic still exists. Oh! Wait! That may be too much of a "Q&A," as debates usually do not have questions. (PRO did not answer any questions, responding as if only debates structured as a Q&A have questions.)
Thirdly, I have claimed that I never said that all circular arguments are unwarranted, which is flatly false since I said: "Everything that justifies itself is begging the question." I apologize and feel a little frustrated that I have not done the due diligence to make the debate fully represent the ideas first presented. I see that it confused the conversation and made it unproductive. The claim is also unjustified, as PRO mentioned once in this debate. If they had pushed on this point, I would (and should) have forfeited.
As a step forward, I will explain how I made this mistake and the steps to prevent it from happening again. Definitions, typically, are propositions that have interchangeable subjects and predicates—for example:
All traditional knowledge is a true justified belief. (Original Definition)
Every true justified belief is traditional knowledge. (Valid extrapolation)
However, these definitions (and postulates) are shortenable—for example:
All traditional knowledge is a belief. (Valid extrapolation)
However, definitions cannot be shortened and interchanged:
Every belief is traditional knowledge. (Invalid extrapolation)
Furthermore, as long as my postulates and definitions are reality and the validity of the chain of logic is sufficient, then there is nothing to worry about. But that is wrong. As previously illustrated, I also need to check the continuity of the extrapolations between definitions and the rationale.
That is the mistake; I have shortened and switched the subject and predicate, making the extrapolation of the definition invalid. As a step forward, I will consciously avoid the same misstep. Furthermore, when mentioning if I had made the same claim converser reports I have, I would read my entire argument instead of only looking at definitions and postulates.
Couldn't it be that I merely did not enjoy debating you much?
Who's the "other one"?
I no longer stand by this argument specifically anymore, although I still hold that every trans woman is a woman.
Even though I still believe absolute certainty is not possible, I would use different reasoning and different phrasing than I have done here. Maybe I will do a debate on this topic again.
Furthermore, I feel as if skepticism as the only tool to find certainty is a bit absurd. It might be true to the best of human knowledge or human limitations, but the topic of certainty shouldn't be limited to what human capabilities are; there should also be recognizable that other minds - human or otherwise - that can find certainty.
As a person who is not certain that these minds do not exist, I can only recognize that.
I would like to make a correction on my end. The argument I have made has an error, for some reason I presumed that a modification is necessarily caused by substance. Though it can be argued that is the case, as Spinoza does, it should have been substantiated. Instead, I baked that attribute to modification in the definition. That was a mistake I have done.
I am actually not very confident in my position of pluralism or monism, as the reason why I wanted to debate this was because I wanted to see the argument from each side. Of course, that sadly did not happen. Right now, I am leaning for pluralism but still want to think about it some more.
I do not think this effects how things should be voted as I have made my argument and effectively refuted my opponents points. Meanwhile, my opponent made a point - refused to substantiate it - and then tried to run with other points.
I will also be commenting on my other debates and seeing if I had made any mistakes.
Would children also be excluded as a point in this debate? Also, since this is a philosophy thing, I assume a person is just someone who is granted person-hood, meaning, they have a moral consideration.
A collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex. Or, at least, that's how most society has truly used the word "woman."
Noted. Updated the description, assuming the false dichotomy (which was one, and was accidentally made) was:
Every trans woman is a woman or no trans woman is a woman.