The Instigator
shakuntala
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 51355
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Con

Is this interpretation of Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean critique of maths/science accurate- I think not

you can view download for free from here

http://www.scribd.com...

or from gamahucher press homepage
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...

Colin leslie dean has been said to give a critique of science and maths that leads to as greatbigworld says
http://www.debate.org...

"His thesis, as I interpret it,...Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, "

I think this is not quite accurate

as colin leslie dean says in his works
that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work
there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness

this theses is pointed out in such works as these

Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com....

Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/.../psychoanalysis/absurd_in_psych.pdf

http://www.scribd.com...
"Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe."

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Decentred1.pdf
"MAN IS DECENTRED. BY. COLIN LESLIE DEAN ... falsifies the universe. Thus man looses his ability to be a privileged knower of the universe

Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate
http://www.scribd.com....

GODEL?S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS

http://www.scribd.com......
Raisor

Pro

This debate is just an attempt to astro-turf and promote the author of the above cited poem.

I will not repeat the name of the author of this poem (although I am 95% certain my opponent will) because I don’t want to boost the number of webpages the use the name. I will just refer to him as “author.”

1) The title page lists the author of this poem as “Australia’s leading erotic poet” but this author is virtually unknown, with no professional reputation or discussion of his work. A brief google search of his name reveals that this author has no major published works, no Wikipedia page, nothing.

2) The author DOES have a discussion page on Wikipedia that notes he is trying to self-promote

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Note that the username of the individual defending the author is the same as the name of the poster linked by Pro on Scribd and of the “publishing company” the author uses.

3) The author has spam across multiple website trying to stir up controversy about his poetry and “philosophy.” This debate is just another attempt to spam a website in a blatant attempt at self promotion.

That this is merely self promoting spam is evidenced by the multiple links Pro provides to his own papers. All of his past debates are about himself and his work, but never in an up-front "let's discuss my ideas" manner. Instead, Pro pretends to be some third party discussing a high profile and controversial thinker. Pro is more interested in gaining visibility than in actually discussing ideas.

Note that this debate isn't about the merits of Pro's philosophy, Pro is not defending a philosophical position. Instead Pro has structured this debate such that it simply allows him to spam links to his self-published works and repeat his name without actually defending any of his positions.

Note that Pro manages to repeat his own name 5 times in his first speech.

Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy.

The interpretation that this debate is purportedly about says "this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding." If Pro is unable to articulate any coherent philosophical position in this debate, than Con's interpretation is clearly correct as Pro does not add anything to philosophical understanding. Put simply, if you do not understand what Pro's philosophy is trying to say, vote Con.

As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Con

pro just not see the real mystery that may open up the universe
ie how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions

pro says
"Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy.

The interpretation that this debate is purportedly about says "this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding." If Pro is unable to articulate any coherent philosophical position in this debate, than Con's interpretation is clearly correct as Pro does not add anything to philosophical understanding. Put simply, if you do not understand what Pro's philosophy is trying to say, vote Con.

As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions."

point 1) pro says
"Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy.
"
reply
colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate
that mathematics and science end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction

pro says
"that because we can't describe the universe "
reply
colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate
that the description mathematics and science give of the universe end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction

reply
colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate
that mathematics and science end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction

pro says
"As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions."

reply
colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate
that mathematics and science show that we know the universe to be meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction
but as such how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions

pro just not see the real mystery that may open up the universe
ie but as such how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions
Raisor

Pro

Con just repeats the same phrase over and over, saying he has proven that math and science end in contradiction.

He doesn't explain how or why. Again, if my opponent fails to present a coherent argument then the original interpretation the the author adds nothing to philosophical knowledge is proven correct. So far he has just provided a repeated assertion without any supporting argument, thus adds nothing to philosophical argument.

Moreover, in light of such incoherence, any interpretation of Con's ideas is legitimate. Without strong textual guidance, any interpretation that manages to logically structure the assertions made by Con is valid.

If you think my opponent is incoherent then you must vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Con

pro says
"Con just repeats the same phrase over and over, saying he has proven that math and science end in contradiction.

He doesn't explain how or why. Again"

pro says
"Con just repeats the same phrase over and over,
He doesn't explain how or why. Again""

reply
this can be said about pro himself all he has done is say he agrees with the interpretation of Deans work but does not back that up with an argument to show why
It is obvious that pro has not even looked at colin leslie deans work he is debating in bad faith he is just taking a aingst me because for some reason he does not like me or colin leslie dean

if pro had read colin leslie deans work he would clearly see the mystery i claim dean is pointing out

Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
quote
"Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time.

pro says
"He doesn't explain how or why. Again"""
reply
I claim Deans work is about the mystery that comes about because maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction ie why /how does maths/science work when maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction

how/why
this mystery arises because maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction

reply I say colin leslie deans work is about the mystery as to how maths/science work when maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction

all you have to do is read some of colin leslie deans titles to see what he is doing-which pro has clearly not done

"Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality
quote
"Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time.

"the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science
Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction

it is obvious that pro has not even looked at colin leslie deans work he is debating in bad faith he is just taking a ainst me because for some reason he does not like me or colin leslie dean
Raisor

Pro

I have several arguments:

1) Pro’s argument is incoherent and unoriginal, so it certainly meets the interpretation under consideration: that the author’s work does not add anything to human understanding. It isn’t my burden to disprove this- Pro needs to demonstrate that the author’s work is coherent and original or he loses this debate.

2) The incoherency of the author means that any interpretation that addresses the disparate assertions of Pro is a legitimate interpretation. I could reconstruct Pro’s “philosophy” in any number of ways and they would all be legitimate and defensible. This is especially true because the original source is so unclear. The lack of clarity opens the door to many interpretations.

3) All of Pro’s presentations seem to support the interpretation that the author is just arguing that internal contradictions in human language (i.e. math and science) means that humans can’t claim any special access to truth based.

For example, Pro says:

“Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time.”

This seems to be saying that contradictions in math and science mean that they provide us no special access to “truth,” no matter how coherent. This is no different from sense/perception based solipsism.

4) The conclusion of the interpretation is certainly correct:

“We are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner
regardless.”

Pro seems to be arguing that science is contradictory but still works. As the original interpretation points out, this leads to a “so what?” situation. Either we throw our hands up or we acknowledge this condition and carry on as usual.

Finally, Pro says I am arguing in bad faith because I haven’t read the author’s work and have a vendetta against him. I HAVE looked at the author’s work. It is riddled with spelling errors and incomplete sentences. It is incoherent. Literally the first sentence has a spelling error and incorrect verb conjugation.

I do have a problem with Pro. Pro is obviously the same person as the author- Pro can’t stop repeating the author’s name and only debates the author’s “philosophy” and poetry. Pro just wants to spam the website in an effort of self-promotion. He is trying to generate fake controversy and pass himself off as a “leading” intellectual. He is generally dishonest and hurts the quality of content on DDO. For this reason I do admit that I have personal motive in taking this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
shakuntala

Con

my premise is which pro say is wrong
is
"as colin leslie dean says in his works
that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work
there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness

As I SAY PRO HAS NOT EVEN READ COLIN LESLIE DEAN

for coliesalie dean says this in his work
quote
Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction
http://www.scribd.com...
"
All in all Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline and a
.... is philosophically absurd and ends in meaninglessness. It becomes a mystery-that needs to be solved- as to why maths works in the practical world when it ends in meaninglessness ie self-contradiction

1)thus I present points which support my premiss

2" pro has not given any quotes from colin leslie dean that support his pro position which is colin leslie deans work is NOT about
"that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work
there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness"

which I have shown by quoting dean is what colin leslie deans work is about
Raisor

Pro

Pro is repeating himself without addressing my points.

Pro is simply arguing that math is "ad hoc" and self contradictory yet somehow works. This is no different than arguments concerning sense perception - they are ad hoc and yield contradictory results, yet somehow we rely on them. It's the same old skeptic and solipsistic argument repackaged, nothing new. This is exactly what the original interpretation said.

I repeat that it is pro's burden to show that the interpretation that he adds nothing new to human understanding is false. It isn't my job to prove pro has no unique position- this an impossible task of proving a negative. Pro must prove he is adding to human knowledge.

Also, can pro just admit he is the author and stop this charade of pretending we are talking about a third party?
Debate Round No. 4
shakuntala

Con

shakuntala forfeited this round.
Raisor

Pro

Raisor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by alexmiller887 3 years ago
alexmiller887
You are debating a member who has expressly asked you to stop posting these, and yet you still go on!

kfc.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
shakuntalaRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the BOP here and failed to fulfill it. And he quit once Pro uncovered his true motivation for starting a debate like this. Funny read :D