The Instigator
dionid
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
dionid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,609 times Debate No: 22398
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

dionid

Pro

Resolved: Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty outside mathematics about things which are not mathematically expressed.

Clarification: The debate does not concentrate on mathematics. Mathematical logic is excluded as the only place where we can actually reach a kind of certainty by the application of pure logic. The argument will instead concentrate on the futility of certain 'logical' arguments. Also I would be grateful if we could avoid defying common sense just to win the argument. In this way we can have a discussion from which we can learn something.

The burden of proof is with Pro (me).

Structure

1. Acceptance/Clarifications
2-4 Argumentation

Only join this debate if you are serious about the topic.
No Semantics please!
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con



The Fool:

Well I didn’t notice that it was your first debate or I wouldn’t have taken it. I mean just how you are talking about logic as in the logic of math as being an exclusive topic. Or even to speak of logics in such a way. Mind you that it is the most common recognition. But as far as semantics goes, simply saying no semantics presumes an over simplification of what semantics are. I take it to be the meaning of words or language aka what a language simple refers to. But I already thing you are referring improperly what logic means. The next issue is on common sense. This is a problematic term in that what is common knowledge is not necessary what is correct. Aka it is common to think of science and Philosophy as distinct entities, but it is none the less a false claim, for Natural Science is just and extension of Natural philosophy. This conclusion is a result of confusing that what is called philosophy as all sharing a commonality.

Aka Continental, theology, existentialist, and post-modernism are completely distinct from critical, analytical philosophy. But that is not-common knowledge. (At least in the US)

I think you mean what I do as in not using semantics to weasel a win from a debate. It is an extreme cowardly form.
You are the first person I have met on DDO’ here to understand the purpose of philosophical debate, which is to acquire knowledge from each other not to win the debate. Mega respect for that!!! It must be because you are from the UK. I am from Canada. You will see that the Philosophy in the US is completely corrupt with theology. And most people argue like a political debate in that they don’t seemed concerned about if their argument follows or not but rather the impression it gives to the voters. I am not used to such cut throat ethics yet.

En garde mon ami!!!!




Principle of Charity
is in effect: http://en.wikipedia.org...

1-Sematic games are out of the question(if you are not sure of a meaning ask in the comment section)

2-Strawmens are serious misconduct.

3-You must quote what you are refuting. e.g. (P1 is not a quote nore is the title of an argument)

4-Always assume the best interpretation of your opponent.(if you are not sure ask in the comments section)


http://philosophy.lander.edu...



Debate Round No. 1
dionid

Pro

First of all hello to everyone as this is my first debate :)
I would like to thank Con for agreeing to take part on this debate. Should be fun!

-----------
A few notes on The Fool's clarification remarks:

By semantics and common sense I do indeed mean "using semantics to weasel a win from a debate" and in general supporting arguments that we all know to be false just because we are opponents. The same goes for common sense. I mean common sense in a common sense way :P

Sorry if there are meanings behind these two concepts that I am missing. I am open to directions on where to look for clarifications if that becomes a problem. I think though that the meanings are going to become clear when I proceed with my points.

Finally, although I am not going to totally subscribe to the Principle of Charity as I did not have the time to investigate its meaning in full, I like the idea. I think Con's is using it to set the tone of the debate in a more conversational manner (in contrast to pure competition).

Note: I am living in the UK but I am actually Greek. Not that this is part of my argument :P
-----------

Ok.. let's move to my points.

In this debate I put forward the proposition that philosophical discourse using ideas for which we have no certainty can not be fruitful. Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results. The problem we are facing is that we use valid logical structures but the concepts behind our premises sometime range from vague to completely unknown. This is more apparent in discussions about big issues such as the meaning of life, god, purpose of the universe etc. It can also be vague when dealing with human things like debates on morality or politics but in these subjects it is definitely more routed in common sense.

To clarify what I mean observe the following examples:

1.
A->B
B->C
Therefore, A->C.

2.
Sissi is a cat
All cats have a tail
therefore Sissi has a tail

Until here everything is good. We are all certain that all cats have a tail (from our experience), therefore we are certain of the result of the argument. But what if the argument was like that:

3.
Sissi is a cat
All cats possess 38 chromosomes
therefore Sissi possesses 38 chromosomes

Hmm.. Sounds plausible since it appears scientific, but we need to check if it is true. In order to know that it is true we would have to actually be a biologist or at least understand what a chromosome is and the mechanism by which we can find out that a cat has 38 chromosomes. Ideally we should also apply the procedure, make the count and finally know that the statement is true. Of course most people will go up to checking Wikipedia (as I just did myself) and maybe a couple more sources if they want to 'make sure'.

So quite different types of 'certainty' there, and I am sure everyone will agree that his/her confidence on the 2nd argument is a lot higher than the 3d one (except if you are indeed a biologist). In any case we can definitely say that it is at least plausible to attain that knowledge and not completely futile to argue the point without doing all the research as our experience has shown that science is trustworthy.

Now the real problem comes when the discussion goes into subjects that are dealing with unseen and unmeasurable concepts. Take this as an example:

4.
Sissi is a biological organism
All biological organisms have a soul
Therefore Sissi has a soul

Probably at this point you are all thinking here is another atheist preparing the ground for his attack :) Well that is not the case but it is not todays topic either. I am sure it is immediately apparent where I am getting at. What is a soul? How do we know that cats have one? Now, if you can define soul and prove, or at least indicate its existence through the scientific method or direct experience, then we can continue with our discussion. If not, a soul (whatever that is) may or may not exist and one thing is certain: we can not move any more closer to certainty in this logical argument.

Conclusion
----------

I have indicated why certainty can come from experience or experimentation. There is the potential that it can be reached using logic if the individual elements are already certain. If that is not the case logical argumentation is futile and should stop (except if it is used as a form of entertainment).

Can Con provide a logical example where this is not the case?
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The master of Fools is a master of logic

Pro: Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results.

The Fool: Yeah this is what I was expecting. Your concept of logic is way off. I know somebody who could help you. Just wait here I go and send him here okay.

Pro: Hmm okay. I guess.

3 hours later

Pro: Well what a liar that guy was. Oh wait a minute, somebody coming. He walks like he thinks he is important of some eccentric distinguished gentlemen.

1 min

Pro: On second thought. He seems to look more and more foolish the closer he gets. Is he dressed in a completely purple business suit? Wow. His glasses look silver and ridiculously too big for his head. What an idiot. He eyes are huge and all googly. I don’t know which one to look at.

The Foolish professor: They there young fellow how goes you?

Hill Top University: Forming definitions(L1)

The Foolish professor:

For the sake of argument let’s grant that that con is right:

Logic is simply a valid means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results.

  1. Symbols are physical constructions which symbolize something other than themselves or they wouldn’t be symbols now would they. Aka to be symbols they must symbolize something. So this is a problem for pros understanding of logic right of the bat.
  2. If logic is simply the validation of symbol manipulations, then how could you claim if it is valid or not.
  3. If logic is simply validation of manipulating symbols, logic would be synonymous with logical results. That is logic result would have the same meaning as valid means of manipulating result.

That is, it’s completely circular to have used the Word logically within the definition or meaning of Logic, because it depends on the definition of logic. For we need to know what logic is first, before we understand what a logical result could means. Therefore definition is nonsensical. These arguments are mutually exclusive. Aka V Form. What does that mean?

Hill Top University: Argument type: V form

The Foolish professor:

In V form argument, the conclusion is supported by mutually exclusive multiple premises/arguments. That is to refute the conclusion you must refute each premise

E.g V Form

P1 .............P2 ..... here P1 and P2 support C1 independently .

.....| ....... |

........ C1

Picture strings attached to P1 to C1 and another from P2 to C1 which are holding up C1. For the conclusion to be refuted, C1 must fall down go boom! The premises are independent supports for the Conclusion. Mind you in my case this debate I have three individual supports against Pro meaning of logic.

I get the impression most DDO peeps are only familiar with T type arguments.

Hill Top University: Argument type: T form

The Foolish professor:

T form arguments are when the conclusion is dependent on all the premises being true in order for the conclusion being True.

E.g T Form

P1 -----P2
.......|
.......|
..... C1

The line marks are there to represent the string of connections, but the support of the conclusion depends on the INTERACTION of P1 and P2.

If one premise is false or uncertain, C1 fall down go Boom!!.

Hill Top University: logical interaction

The Foolish professor:

Conditionals and interaction:

In order for a conditional to be valid: P->Q

1. P must interact with Q (they must share an interacting context)

e.g. Valid example, If I push my monitor then it will move back. Let Push my monitor=P It will move back=M Thus P->M is a valid Conditional.

Invalid Conditional: If I drink some water then a bomb will go off in India. Let Drink water=D Bomb in India= B
D->B is invalid because there is no interacting context (context in which D affects B)

2. There must be order:

That is P must depend on Q Aka (1) P must be a sufficient condition of Q. (2) Q must be a necessity of P

If this is no order then all you have is a conjunction (P&Q)

Premise interaction:

I have seen some really bad arguments be accepted in large numbers.

P1 this is a logical argument.

P2 Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.

P3….

P4 ……

P5…

P1 does not interacting with the argument is not a part of forming the conclusion P1 is a conclusion not a premise. Therefore it can only go at the end. P2 also does not interact with the rest of the argument. Thus it’s not a premise for this argument. Remember the form of an argument is Just One large conditional.

E.g.

Antecedent (p1,p2,p3)-------------> Consequence(C1)

The Foolish professor: Well this is the end of today’s lesson. Got to go.

Pro: Wait hey.. I got questions.

The Foolish professor: Nah! I got to go now, But just remember one thing.

Pro: what’s that?

The Foolish professor: Vote Fool!!

Debate Round No. 2
dionid

Pro

Hmm... I must admit I was waiting for a response that will get me thinking about the actual content of the argument instead of the usual over concentration on words. In short Con's argumentation method was:

- Here is an improperly phrased sentence. I will stop reading here and start refuting.
- Explanation about how misguided Pro is.
- Logic lesson.

What other points? What meaning? What content?

This is what I mean when I say no semantics. I said "Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results.". You are right. I shouldn't use the word logical because it makes it circular but come on... You know what I am saying here, no? And that is what I mean by common sense.. (sigh)

We can rephrase it like: "Logic is of course effective as a method of reasoning with which we can reach valid conclusions.". If you still find this problematic instead of doing the same thing please just think of my argument without that sentence at all and try to refute it. And please make your writing clearly related to my argument and not a general lecture in logical form.

Conclusion
--------------
Con occupied herself with the refutation of a single phrase from my argument. I have responded to her valid observation by rephrasing my sentence. If my new sentence is unsatisfactory as well, I have invited her to consider my argument without the sentence at all. It will still be sound.

The content of Con's first argument demonstrated nothing more than her obvious interest in creative writing and her desire to teach.

Vote Pro :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dionid

Pro

April fools crashed this debate :(

I am going to start a new one.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@RoyLatham
you are right. Change? what is this guy thinking. Debate ethics ? Hey thats not the way we have been doing. no change noo change. evolving . can't aaahhh its changing. .. ..
Posted by dionid 4 years ago
dionid
@RoyLatham
Bear in mind that this is my first debate. All I did was check other debates and imitate the structure. In DDO seems to be quite common that the first round goes to acceptance/clarification instead of an argument. Having said that, I can see what you mean and next time I will post my first argument directly.

Please assume my intentions are good unless I prove the opposite :)
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
"Again, what I mean should become clear when I actually expand on my point."

Sounds like the Nancy Pelosi school of debate: you must accept the debate to find out what the resolution means.

Strawman arguments are not a conduct violation. Con cannot impose rules after accepting.
Posted by dionid 4 years ago
dionid
Haha and I was getting confused on where the argumentation is supposed to happen :P
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: what a Fool!
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Oops
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
oops
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
oops that is where it went.. lol..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The master of Fools is a master of logic
Pro: Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results.
The Fool: Yeah this is what I was expecting. Your concept of logic is way off. I know somebody who could help you. Just wait here I go and send him here okay.
Pro: Hmm okay. I guess.
3 hours later
Pro: Well what a liar that guy was. Oh wait a minute, somebody coming. He walks like he thinks he is important of some eccentric distinguished gentlemen.
1 min
Pro: On second thought. He seems to look more and more foolish the closer he gets. Is he dressed in a completely purple business suit? Wow. His glasses look silver and ridiculously too big for his head. What an idiot. He eyes are huge and all googly. I don't know which one to look at.
The Foolish professor: They there young fellow how goes you?

Hill Top University: Forming definitions(L1)
The Foolish professor:
For the sake of argument let's grant that that con is right:
Logic is simply a valid means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results.
1.Symbols are physical constructions which symbolize something other than themselves or they wouldn't be symbols now would they. Aka to be symbols they must symbolize something. So this is a problem for pros understanding of logic right of the bat.
2.If logic is simply the validation of symbol manipulations, then how could you claim if it is valid or not.
3.If logic is simply validation of manipulating symbols, logic would be synonymous with logical results. That is logic result would have the same meaning as valid means of manipulating result.
That is, it's completely circular to have used the Word logically within the definition or meaning of Logic, because it depends on the definition of logic. For we need to know what logic is first, before we understand what a logical result could means. Therefore definition is nonsensical. These arguments are mutually exclusive. Aka V Form. What does that mean?
Posted by dionid 4 years ago
dionid
@The_Fool

I agree with you as well ;)
By saying "You are right" I am acknowledging that I can understand his point of view.
But let's not discuss all that in the comments. That is what the debate is for!

:)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
dionidThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Thanks for the Logic lesson...Pros points didn't recieve enough rebuttal, conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
dionidThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: stupid april fools that crashed this debate