The Instigator
mschechtel17
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 100059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

mschechtel17

Pro

I present that all original ideas are a logical and practical interpretation of a certain feeling or emotion. Specifically that the formation on an idea takes place with an undeniable relationship to emotion and is expressed in the physical world to either prevent a specific emotion or in reaction to a specific emotion. An example of how this could happen is as follows: A stimulus elicits an emotion -> the human mind interprets that emotion to form an idea -> then the human person expresses that idea in the physical world.

This is a free-form debate and the con will argue that ideas can be formed absent of emotion.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Idea: any conception existing in the mind as a result of mentalunderstanding, awareness, or activity.

Though I will agree that some ideas are logical interpretations of emotions, or a thought based on one's emotional state or one-sided perspective, I will argue that not all ideas are derived from emotion.

I will argue that ideas such as scientific theories and facts are not derived from emotion, but rather scientific observations, hypothesises with a logical basis, and tests.
Debate Round No. 1
mschechtel17

Pro

I want to emphasize that I specifically meant all Original Ideas are logical and practical interpretations of emotion. I say original because in this philosophical world we are currently attempting to speak in, the motivation for repeating some else's idea is likely that individual trying to use another's idea to help achieve their own, topically unrelated idea.

Scientific theories are a great example for this debate, particularly because most people think science is conducted absent of emotion, and because I am trying to prove emotion is connected to all ideas.

In contemplating some of history's most monumental scientific theories, Galileo's theory of gravity, Benjamin Franklin's discovery of electricity, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and Watson and Crick's theory/discovery of DNA, we can understand the truth and importance behind them. In our time we regard these theories as concrete facts. However, these theories were not regarded as facts during the time each man first created their theory. I'll use Darwin as my main example. Charles Darwin created his theory of evolution using the scientific process, first starting with an observation of the natural world that kick started his research. My argument is that all of man before him was offered the same opportunity to observe the natural world as Charles Darwin. Now, either observations of the natural world elicited a different emotion in Charles Darwin than they did for all other man, or observations of the natural world elicited the same emotion to any person that saw them but Charles Darwin logically interpreted the observations in a different way than any else had ever done before. It seems reasonable that one day Darwin was struck by a sense of wonder from his observations that lead him to make sense of this emotional wonder and explain it to the world using science as his medium to do so.

Talking about the practice of science in a broad way, I feel comfortable saying that the start of the pathway to scientific discovery for each individual was a spark of wonder and desire to make logical sense of this wonder. Furthermore, this sense of wonder must not be lost while conducting the scientific process in order to accurately separate fact from fiction. Although this sense of wonder is not lost through the process, it changes with each new observation and new piece of information which leads to new ideas of how to pursue this wonder and realize the completion of the experiment. Once the experiment is completed the sense of wonder in the conductor is replaced by a different emotion, perhaps feelings of satisfaction and pride. Once that emotion of wonder is gone the conductor of the experiment will no longer have ideas that will further the experiment in question.

In summation, ideas in science are derived from emotion the same as art (for example) but they are interpreted and expressed in a very different way from art.
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent has attempted to refute my claims regarding how scientific theories and facts are derived from emotion by using the example of Charles Darwin. He claims that, because every man was offered the same opportunity to study nature as Charles Darwin did, and because Charles Darwin interpretted certain scientific observations differently than others, his theory of Evolution was an idea derived from emotion. He also adds onto this to say that sciencific study for "each individual was a spark of wonder and desire to make logical sense of this wonder." For this statement to be true, we would have to assume that every scientist loves pursuing their work, and that they work solely for the thrill of working, which is untrue. The strenous task of trying to set up a labspace that is sanitary and will not affect their intended results, the potentially hazardous reactants and tools they might use, and the responsibility to have to repeat this experiment multiple times to confirm their results is not something that all scientists might not give people a "sense of wonder," but rather be tiring. I do not believe that all scientists pursue their studies with a "sense of wonder," as my opponent argues.

For example, Isaac Newton did not come up with the theory of gravity simply because he imagined it, but, as it goes, an apple fell onto his head, which gave him the idea that it was natural law that things would fall down, rather than fly up. Yes, it was curiousity which led him to construct the theory of gravity, but ideas derived from emotions did not help him create the theory of gravity. Instead, the theory of gravity was constructed with ideas derived from experiments and scientific observations.

In conclusion, yes, emotions can inspire scientists to pursue experiments and their studies, but emotions cannot dictate nor construct the factual evidence and ideas which are yielded by experiments and interpretted into theories.
Debate Round No. 2
mschechtel17

Pro

The con refutes my previous argument, that scientific theories are in fact an interpretation of emotion by suggesting that if this is true that all scientists "loves pursuing their work, and that they work solely for the thrill of working"and says that this is untrue. The con also suggests that likely some scientists work for other reasons because they see the scientific process as tiresome and perhaps daunting. He suggests that their motivation comes from something outside of science and the ideas they have in the scientific world are thus non-emotionally motivated ideas.

In the science world of today, the head researcher of any professional study is responsible for overseeing this research being carried out in the appropriate fashion that will help to answer the scientific question at hand and devise an experimental process to do so. The head researcher does not usually carry out the leg work of setting up the labs, doing the field work, and conducting the tests. They are responsible for interpreting the test results and data that other collect allowing the head researcher to focus on the discoveries of the research. Although this work might still be tiresome, the researcher does not have to be burdened with actually carrying it out and thus can focus their efforts on interpreting the information to answer the question at hand in order to fulfill the initial emotion that sparked the idea for this research and to see if their idea can be correct. In this way the head researcher is the only party contributing original ideas to the research, while every one else involved is just carrying out the orders of the head researcher and trying to fulfill the head researchers ideas. The employees actually conducting the research aren't afforded the option to contribute their own ideas to the research unless the head researcher decides to implement them and only does so if it elicits a specific emotion in the head researcher and they feel it will be beneficial to the overall goal. The people that carry out the process of sanitizing the lab and working with hazardous material are likely just doing their job to get paid. Their motivation to complete the work is based on money that they can then use to fulfill their own emotionally sparked original ideas that may very unrelated to the topic of the research, like building a family. In this way the head researcher is the only real scientist because they are the ones making sure the scientific process is being carried out properly, decide what ideas could and could not be valuable to the overall topic, and do so in order to contribute brand new information to the world in turn satisfying their own sense of wonder about the topic at hand and contributing to humanity with this topic. This is why I emphasized the importance of original ideas being attributed to emotion, because not all people involved in a topic have the same emotional connection to the topic that will lead beneficial ideas for the topic in question. But the head researcher, who first had the idea will undoubtedly try to realize the completion of the idea, the research, with the connection to the initial emotion that sparked the idea.

Additionally my con makes the argument that Isaac Newton did not discover gravity based on ideas sparked by emotion, but rather " but, as it goes, an apple fell onto his head, which gave him the idea that it was natural law that things would fall down, rather than fly up". First off, this is a common myth and the scientific community doesn't actually think an apple striking Issac Newton in the head lead him declaring the theory of gravity. Likely the notion of gravity did not come from a fleeting moment of one apple striking him in the head and him being curious about it one time. It was probably more of an obsession of curiosity Newton had when he noticed things like an apple falling from a tree and unintentionally used the scientific process to gather facts and evidence to address the sense of curiosity he felt when he saw an apple fall from a tree and didn't know why. It seems emotions play a consent role in interpreting information serving as a guide for what can be accepted as fact and what can be considered unknown. Newton conducted the scientific process using his sense of curiosity about gravity as his guide to recorded what can be considered fact and what couldn't. Once Newton satisfied the idea born of the curiosity he had of a specific incident he added the facts to his overall idea of gravity, contemplated it, became curious of another factor, and sought to explain his curiosity. An example of this is if he really did witness an apple falling from the tree and was struck by curiosity about why it fell down and didn't go up, it was the initial emotion of curiosity that lead him to uncontrollably question the physics of the apple and his mind translated it into words in order to make sense of the emotion connected to the situation. Although a lot of time might have passed between this initial idea and Newton conducting science to address this idea, it was still the emotion that sparked the idea which led him to conduct the science and in order to authentically address this idea he would have had to interpret the information he gathered by linking it to his original idea in an honest way. Since his original idea was sparked by emotion, as the con seems to agree with, everything followed was connected to that emotion that sparked the idea and thus Newton constantly used this emotion to interpret new information until he was able to satisfy this idea sparked by curiosity as best and authentically as he could. In this way every idea he had about gravity stemmed from that initial moment of curiosity.

I think it's important to note that although we use the word curiosity as a standard emotion that everyone experiences the same way, this really isn't the way emotion works. Not everyone experiences curiosity the same way, and one person likely doesn't experience curiosity in the say way each time. Furthermore, people don't usually experience only one emotion at a time, but experience different intensities of multiple emotions from any given situation and it is a persons ability to logically interpret this swirling combination of emotions that a situation elicited and translate them into words to express what we call "an idea" to other people in an effort to convey an understanding of our emotional state that was sparked by a situation.

If one is trying to realize an idea, they stop having new original ideas about that specific topic until the over all idea and emotion is made sense of. The process of carrying out the scientific process of gathering facts and evidence may be absent of emotion but then, by this logic, must also be absent of ideas. This statement makes sense because if one is using discipline to try and realize their original idea they aren't focusing their effort on discovering new original ideas of the same topic because their effort is put towards realizing the first idea they had about the topic.

I maintain that the way ideas are formed, especially in science, happen in this fashion. Person experiences stimulus -> stimulus elicits emotions -> Person translates emotions in a logical presentation of words -> other people understand the logical interpretation of words and call it an idea.
CosmoJarvis

Con

I find it fairly interesting regarding how part of this debate's main focus has shifted to the greatest motivation for scientific research. My opponent's argument this round consists of his interpretation on why scientific research is conducted. He concludes that scientific research is carried out because "[scientific research] elicits a specific emotion in the head researcher and they feel it will be beneficial to the overall goal. The people that carry out the process of sanitizing the lab and working with hazardous material are likely just doing their job to get paid. Their motivation to complete the work is based on money that they can then use to fulfill their own emotionally sparked original ideas that may very unrelated to the topic of the research, like building a family." To summarize, my opponent asserts that researchers pursue scientific research either because they want to benefit to society with their findings, or because they want to be paid to "fulfill their own emotionally sparked ideas... like building a family." My opponent tries to connect emotion into the idea that scientists, or anyone who is employed, has a job either because they wish to pursue their interests or get money to do things such as "building a family." Though this somewhat connects to my argument on how scientists construct theories and conclusions through experimentation and calculations, rather than emotions. To refute my argument, my opponent argues that it is because scientists derive theories and such from emotion. However, clearly, scientific theories are constructed through observations in experiments and factual information.

My opponent concludes his argument by arguing that ideas, such as scientific theories, are constructed through a process where a "Person experiences stimulus -> stimulus elicits emotions -> Person translates emotions in a logical presentation of words -> other people understand the logical interpretation of words and call it an idea."

My opponent's argument, in summary, argues that all ideas are a "logical interpretation of emotion" because emotions are supposedly the basis of all ideas. However, my opponent ignores that ideas such as mathematical equations and scientific theories are al
most entirely founded on factual information. For example, the quadratic equation is an equation for a curved line on a graph. In no way, shape or form is this affected by emotions, but rather variables.

In conclusion, not all ideas are logical translations of emotions. This is shown to be the case in things such as scientific theories and mathematical equations, which are founded almost entirely on factual information. Though, as my opponent argues, this ideas might be fueled by emotions such as curiosity, they do not form the basis of these ideas.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 year ago
mschechtel17
it was, thanks for sticking with the main idea
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Good debate.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 year ago
mschechtel17
@Canis depends on if you feel your boat should go as fast as it can, be balanced (in terms of the mechanism [the boat as a whole], or if you want the cheapest option because you feel your money is best spent in other areas.

Either way you will likely make the decision you feel most comfortable with at the time of the decision, and that you will feel most comfortable with when using your boat. Comfort is a feeling of emotion.

Boat sounds nice btw
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Anyway..I have a 9 kg rc boat..11 kw motor with 70-18 prop. and 18s 60c lipos + an 400 A ESC+AWG 8 wired..Should do 80 mph.. Or ?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
But the correlation: "Ideas".."Logical". "interpretation". "Emotion" is impossible to debate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Interpretations can lead to all kind of ideas.
No votes have been placed for this debate.