The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Pragnanz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Logic is self destructive as a means of finding truth.

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 1 vote the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 28463
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Can anyone use logic to justify why we must logically use logic to justify its use?
Pragnanz

Con

Seeing as the debate is 5 rounds long and my opponent has yet to posit any arguments I will refrain from developing a case until the second round. I will instead provide a basic framework for interpreting the resolution, seeing as the PRO neglected to do so.

Logic: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the validity of a statement.
Self-Destructive [1]: acting or tending to harm or destroy oneself.

Because the focus of the resolution is truth, we can reasonably claim that logic is referential to epistemology and more accurately define it as a term of art.

Epistemic Logic: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the truth value of a statement.

Therefore we can read the topic more accurately as: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the truth value of a statement destroys itself.

The resolution reads as a positive claim - the resolution asserts an epistemic claim that must be sufficiently warranted - placing the burden of proof onto the PRO. This means that as the adjudicator of the debate, the readers will vote in favor of the PRO if he warrants the resolution and his arguments withstand his criticism. Lacking sufficient support, the vote shall be defaulted to the CON. In other words, I don't have to prove that logic is an effective means of finding truth, simply that it is not self-destructive.

As I digress I shall leave my opponent with one question: In asking me to provide a logical explanation for logic, are you not conceding that logic is effective as a justificatory tool? In other words, you are asking for a reason to use reason. In doing so you admit to the validity of reason.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

The point is this:

If logic is the 'best' way to find truth and if it inherently is meant to determine the degree of truth in an and all statements then it should be able to prove truth in the statement "Is logic, logically the best way to determine truth?" that fact that it is impossible to do so shows a fundamental flaw in logic that it can't prove itself true yet is meant to be the best way to determine truth.
Pragnanz

Con

Pragnanz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

What I am sayig is it is impossible to use logic, to justify why, LOGICALLY, logic is a good (or the best) way of finding the truth.
Pragnanz

Con

Pragnanz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

*illogical defeat*
Pragnanz

Con

Pragnanz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

*spin-jumping 360 degree kick to face*

*flat out victory*
Pragnanz

Con

Pragnanz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
ive seen the movie and you clearly missed the point
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Hey Narmak observe the video carefully:
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
have you ever been asked hw many fingers am i holding behind my back? why dont you say 11 or 15? The reason for that is we know that most humans have 10 fingers so saying any number higher than 10 wouldnt work (FOR THIS CASE THE DUDE HAS 10 FINGERS). However the only way to narrow the number of fingers down and find the truth is to use logic. if logic is not used any number is possible which means greater chance for error. that being said with logic there is a 1 in 10 chance to get the number correct without logic there is an 1 in infinite chance to get it right.

Logic can prove everything that exists as it is based on evidence.

a blind man is walking but not moving anywhere why would this happen? There is no way to answer without using logic. a couple possibilities 1) hes walking into somthing 2). somthing is holding him 3)hes walking on the spot. One of those three is true the reason there are 3 options is because we only know the blind man has stopped moving we do not know whatt is around him. but if i were to mention he was completely alone with nothing around him for miles which one would you say was true? again without logic you can never arrive at truth.

And since logic is the only means to reach a truth it is the best way to do so. you can not answer a question without some form of reasoning. if you have 0 apples and someone gives you 5 apples how many apples do you have. Solve this withut using logic which by the way a little heads up is impossible
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
RationalMadmanPragnanzTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF