Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable
Debate Rounds (5)
Reasonable is defined as 'to have sound judgment' (1) where sound is defined as 'free from logical flaws' (2)
In your statement, you logic is stating:
"X is the measurement of Y, I know X so I am Y."
In other words, you are stating that knowing the measure of something is equivalent to having that something. Whilst this could often be the case, it is not necessarily true which is what the statement implies. For example, I know the measurement of height is metres. However, this does not mean that I know I am tall.
Using your logic, the following would be true:
"Metres is the measurement of height, and I know metres, so I know I am high".
This statement is not logically valid. Firstly, because knowledge of the measure of something does not mean I can actually measure it. I am a physics student and know what the Tesla (T) is (the measure of magnetic flux density), this does not mean that I can actually measure magnetic flux density. Secondly, just because I measure something does not mean that I will get a high result. In the statement, one could use logic to measure how reasonable they are, but they could then find themselves to be unreasonable based on their logic. For example, let us say that I know what IQ tests are, what they measure and how to do them. I might know all this, but this does not mean I will get a high IQ score.
To conclude, you might know logic but that does not mean you can measure how reasonable you are. Also, you may measure how reasonable you are but you cannot guarantee that you will find yourself to be reasonable.
lies are complicated by separation, and true is simple now as one
know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)
logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die
I cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure
how fast is 50 miles per hour?
By measuring your height, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are tall. You could very well be short.
'know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not'
That assumes that you are tall, if you are short and claim to be tall then you don't know that you are tall. Relating back to the statement, you're begging the question by assuming that you are reasonable in order to prove that you are reasonable.
'logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die'
Agreed, I do not really disagree that logic is the measurement of reasonable, only that 'I know logic, so I am reasonable' is a false conclusion to draw from it.
' cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure
how fast is 50 miles per hour?'
This is not imaginary. A speedometer informs the observer of how fast it is moving through space.
50 miles per hour is the average speed at which one is travelling through space when one moves 50 miles in exactly one hour.
begging what question, I know I cant see these words with my eyes closed so I know its reasonable to keep them open if I want to read these words on the screen
if I know I cant see with my eyes closed, I know I have to open them to see, and it is reasonable to do so if I want to see
the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?
Begging the question is a term in logic where one attempts to use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. In your case, you are using the conclusion (that you are reasonable) as a premise (that you are reasonable).
"the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?"
I know things from the axiom of empiricism. Assuming that my senses give an accurate perception of reality then I can tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is by stating that it is the speed at which one can travel for one hour and move 50 miles. A speedometer, conversely, cannot tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is. Only that you ARE going at 50 miles per hour.
reality is defined by experience, so the car goes as fast as I see, hear, know, that is the true speed
know=physical experience of now
lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one
you can tell my anything, i am telling you the moon is made of cheese, and your sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption, you have no other connection to reality then your senses, you are dead without them
However, whilst remaining an empiricist, I refute your claim that sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption. You are assuming that your senses are giving an accurate portrayal of reality. This is an assumption because there is no synthetic or analytic evidence to that it is fact. It may well be your only connection to reality, but that does not necessarily mean it is a reliable one. Nonetheless, just because it is an assumption does not mean it is not a reasonable assumption. It is reasonable, but that does not make it not an assumption.
Also, your definition of 'know' as 'physical experience of now' is faulty, because that would imply that one cannot know something without physically experiencing it. This is false. I know that all bachelors are unmarried because 'bachelor' means 'unmarried male'. It is true by definition and I do not require physical experience of the romantic relationships (or lack thereof) of bachelors to know that they are unmarried.
fact=Knowledge=memory of personal physical experience
where as anything I imagine goes to belief, so its not a fact, as facts are past observations, and you don't know if I just looked at my dog, in fact, I don't have a dog, but am I lying about not having a dog? so is it a fact or not that I just looked at my dog?
facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory, that's like saying I can see what others have observed in the past in my imagination now and its true? imagination is 100 percent false
I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine
if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute, I also know liquid is wet even if I could only imagine it, as know is true and the absolute are no other option
I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect
I know it is unreasonable to feed my child battery acid because of the implications it has, and matter determines it, so I know logic, therefore I know reason, because knowing logic is continuous, you can not not experience logic, to suggest other wise is madness
know is cause and effect, if you are blind you cant see these words on your screen, and its absolute
Agreed, knowing logic is an aspect of reason. However, showing logic is not to say that you are reasonable. This is because 'reasonable' is when someone is consistently and aptly using logic. One can use logic inconsistently and incompetently and not be reasonable, because you have noted correctly that everyone uses logic, but not everyone uses it well enough to be classed as reasonable.
Furthermore, I dispute your definition of fact. You say a fact is defined as 'memory of personal physical experience' but this would mean that hallucinations and dreams are factual, which is false. Again, it is also a false definition as not all facts need to come from physical experience. For example, that fact that a triangle has three sides does not need to come from physical experience, I know it analytically using reason alone.
"facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory"
This is also false, I have no memory of researching and finding out about biochemical enzyme reactions (because I never did so), but that does not mean that biochemical facts to do with enzyme reactions do not exist.
"if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute"
Analytic statements have nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is an empirical axiom (albeit a disputed one) that epistemologically assist us in understanding sensory experience. A significant attribute of a priori analytic reasoning is that cause and effect are irrelevant principles.
For example, you cite this example:
'I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect'
The relevance of cause and effect is present because your knowledge that you cannot see words on a screen without opening your sides is a posteriori reasoning (coming from experience) and so cause and effect are aptly considered. Yet this is not the case in analytic facts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con won in the first round as far as I'm concerned by pointing out the opposing argument was "X is the measurement of Y, I know X so I am Y." This very effectively broke down the flawed logic being used by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.