The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
STAGIESTCOSINE
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 42394
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

First round for acceptence (no arguing in the first round).
STAGIESTCOSINE

Con

I accept. I know absolutely NOTHING about the subject (never even heard of it) - but I'll gladly try to pick holes in your argument, if I can. The Burdon of Truth is with you.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My Argument

My argument is simple. Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary. All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical. If they were, then all truth would have to be illogical by association; which is not the case because some truths are logically necessary (self-evidently, a truth that is logically necessary, cannot also be illogical).

Defense Of My Argument


Some truths are logically necessary. For instance, a perfectly spherical cube cannot appear in my hand right now. Why? Because to be perfectly round is to have no edges, but to be a cube is to have edges. Something cannot both:

(i) Have edges
(ii) Not have edges

That violates the logical Law of Noncontradiction [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. Thus, according to logic, it is a logically necessary truth that the below is true:

"An object cannot have edges, and no edges, at the same time"

Now, why does all truth entail an infinite regress? Well, because if something is true, then it has to be true that it is true. If it is true that it is true, then it must be true that it is true that it is true. If it is true that that is true that it is true, then it must be true that it is true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum.

Since some truths are necessary, and all truth entails an infinite regress; some infinite regresses cannot be illogical. If all infinite regresses were illogical, then there couldn't be necessary logical truths. There are. Thus, the resolution is established.
STAGIESTCOSINE

Con

I don’t think this will be much of a debate, because I kind of agree with you. Anyway, my understanding of infinite regression is:

1) “It’s turtles all the way down”.

or

2) Mother: The grass is green
Child: Why
Mother: Because chlorophyll makes it appear green
Child: Why
Mother: because it absorbs red and blue light, and reflects green
Child: Why
…..ad infinitum

or

3) A truth which relies on another truth to make it true which in turn, relies on some other truth, which itself relies…. etc

“Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”

Ok that’s fair. Squares have four sides and there are 360 degrees in a circle. These are fabricated truths, ‘limited truths’ created by humans’ to make sense of an unknowable reality…. they fit human constructs of the universal. They allow us to neatly create order in chaos. They satisfy an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding, but ultimately only leading to further questions (infinite regresses). Some truths are logically necessary, yes: - Necessary for the human mind to conceptualise reality; to stop humans from going crazy, to help to keep society ‘functioning properly’, and for technological advancement.

“All truth entails an infinite regress."

Ok, if you say so? Well, kind of, but only if you look deep enough, only if you ask one more question. Curiosity killed the Cat. I’ll end this sentence with a full stop. Forget infinity.

"All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical”

If all truth is an infinite regress then it’s illogical for a human mind to keep seeking truth because that would take forever (infinity) and we have a finite life span. We could keep looking for the answer, but our last moment of life would culminate in a question passed to the next generation. Live fully, feel don’t think. Curiosity killed the Cat, and Eve?

Some truths are logically necessary…

…for the logical mind to accept them, Yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth, the truth, the truth because an object cannot have edges and no edges at the same time if we want that object to fit into a bracket created by the human. Why would we want to do that anyway?

Since some truths are necessary?

Are they? To who? Why are they necessary? To stop us going mad… You are mad.


I do not accept all truths are infinite regresses. I do not accept the truth for a start. The truth has no words. There will be truth when there are no more humans to consider what we consider tobe the truth.

blar, blar logic, blocko...

"They are playing a game. They are playing at not
playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I
shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game"
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
STAGIESTCOSINE

Con

Accidental deadline expiry by Pro, these things happen. That's the truth.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I apologize for forfeiting a round; I didn't make it in time. Either way, I think it is clear that I will have this debate in the bag after this round.

What Is An Infinite Regress?

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Clearly, all truth implies an infinite regress. This is because to be true, it has to be true that it is true. For it to be true that it is true, it must be true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum.

Therefore, it is not debatable; all truth entails an infinite regress.

Some Truths Are Logically Necessary

My opponent also concedes that some truths are logically necessary:

"Some truths are logically necessary" - Con

He then says

"…for the logical mind to accept them, Yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth" - Con

Well, his "truth" would be wrong then. Logically necessary truths are objective truths.

The Law Of Non-Contradiction

Something cannot be illogical, and logical at the same time. Therefore, since there are logically necessary truths; certain truths cannot be illogical. However, all truths entail infinite regresses. It therefore follows that not all infinite regresses are illogical.

Conclusion

All truth entails an infinite regress. Some truths are logically necessary. Thus, some truths cannot be illogical (they are logically necessary). Since all truths entail an infinite regress, and some truths are logically necessary; all infinite regresses cannot be illogical.

The resolution has been established.
STAGIESTCOSINE

Con

Pro: “I apologize for forfeiting a round; I didn't make it in time. Either way, I think it is clear that I will have this debate in the bag after this round”.

After Pro accidently forfeit round 3 he simply reasserted his earlier argument in this round - but without providing any proof (while presuming repeating himself will win the debate?

Pro attempts to apply logic to prove his premise however we need to accept that “ALL TRUTH IS AN INFINITE REGRESS” for it to be true..

Pro’s Argument: “All truth entails aninfinite regress. Some truths are logically necessary. Thus, some truths cannotbe illogical (they are logically necessary). Since all truths entail an
infinite regress, and some truths are logically necessary; all infinite
regresses cannot be illogical”.

All Pro’s argument boils down to is:

all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses).

some squigs (truths) are logical and some sguigs
(truths) are illogical

proving not all rams (infinite regresses) are
illogical.

Pro provides no proof that ALL TRUTH is are infinite regresses.

Instead he just repeats it over and over. The only ‘evidence’ he provides is: for something to be true
then it is true that it is true…ad infinitum. This is a play on words, not reality.

He then copy and pastes Wikipedia:

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3,
... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity"

And adds…

“Clearly, all truth implies an infinite regress. This is because to be true, it has to be true that it is true. For it to be true that it is true, it must be true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum”.

Well, clearly, it does not imply ALL truth is an infinite regress, hence the “if”.

In fact there are many alternative epistemological standpoints which counter your proposition that ALL TRUTH is an infinite regress, for example:

  • Skepticism
    - knowledge is impossible
  • The regress is finite, but has no end
    (Coherence view)
  • The regress ends in self-evident truths, the
    axioms of geometry
    , for example
    (Foundationalist view)
  • Non-inferential credibility, such as direct sense perceptions

    http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

Pro: “Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”.

Have you considered the logic of your sentence?

“Some truth must not be illogical” means that ‘some truth is logical’…. ground breaking stuff!! J. Basically, your sentence reads “some truth is logical, but logically necessary” - the sum total of which is gibberish (and gibberish= illogical).

Therefore,

In your mind it was logical to write that “some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”, therefore ‘the illogical’ and ‘the logical’ existed simultaneously, albeit, unbeknown to you.

Thus,

You, yourself, have disproven the ’Law of Non-Contradiction’ that you put forward.

The Illogical only exists because we apply logic to discredit it….. while in the process of applying logic to discredit something as illogical then the illogical and logical exist in a state of unrest until the observer accepts a truth, and decides upon the logical or not.

Pro: Some Truths Are Logically Necessary

Con: “for the logical mind to accept them, yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth"

To which Pro replied “Well, his "truth" would be wrong then”

I find this misguided at best (and extremely arrogant at worst. Pro knows the truth (reality) no more the next man…

To the colour blind red may be green. That’s his truth - red IS green.To the crazy man ‘dry rain’ may exist because that is what he believes – THAT IS HIS TRUTH… his REALITY. Just because the ‘majority consensus’ dictates that dry rain is an implausible notion does not mean that the crazy man’s truth does not exist, it is HIS TRUTH. This further proves that the logical and illogical can exist simultaneously between humans, conceptually at least. However, Illogical and Logical ‘truths’ existing simultaneously, are not exclusively reserved for between the minds of the maniac and sane, but also between the ignorant and informed, and the theist and atheist, for example.

Conclusion.

I have unaswered rebutals from round two.

Pro simply repeated his arguments from round two.
Pro cannot apply logic to make a statement about a premise he failed to prove.

Pro attempted to apply logic to prove that not all infinite regresses
are illogical,. but for this to be true he required us to accept that ALL TRUTH was
an infinite regress. However Pro provided NO PROOF that ALL TRUTH was an infinite regress (...infact I actually provided epistomological alternatives to the infinite regress).

....therefore, contrary to Pro’s belief, he failed to establish his resolution.

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
That's is right, Pros original proposition was correct - not all infinite regressions are illogical. However, it is clear, he based his agument around faulty logic, and upon on an idea that all truth is an infinite regress, which he failed to prove (because it is not).

Pro's Proposition = Correct
Pro's Argument = Well formulated and written
Pro's Basis for Argument = TOTALLY INCORRECT
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
I agree that Pro failed in what he was doing, as in proving that truth is all infinite regresses, but he was able to provide one valid potential infinite about truths, although I think his argument itself for all truths being infinite regresses is ludicrous if not ridiculous. I mentioned that in my BoP, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. In simpler words, what he was set to prove is different from what he had to prove. Hence, if he satisfies the BoP mentioned in his resolution and opening statement, then he wins the arguments regardless if what he was set to prove turned out to be a catastrophe.

The resolution of the debate is "Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical." Hence, Pro had to provide one infinite regress. I consider his "It is true that this is true" to be a potential infinite regress. As long as that is valid, Pro deserves the arguments for satisfying the resolution of the debate. I don't care much about how his main argument fails given that his BoP was simply to provide an infinite regress and he chose the wrong method to do that but was able to give one potential infinite regress. If the resolution was "all truths are infinite regresses", I would have had a different say, of course.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
below is reply to NiqashMotawadi3...
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
The concept of an infinite regress is quite rational (however following that kind of enquiry to determine the truth is absurd).

Instead it seemed Pro used wordplay"... It"s silly to say "it"s true that it"s red because it"s true that it"s red because it"s true that it"s true that its true that it is red"ad infintum. Not "All Truth" requires that level quantification, implying it does is wordplay.

Pro saying if something is True, then it"s True that it is True" to infinity is not the same as saying:

"P1: It is not illogical for an event to precede an event," " P2: it is not illogical to have an infinite number of events"

Pro set out to prove that not all infinite regresses were illogical; it should have been quite easy to do.
However, he chose to base his argument upon simple "IQ test logic" and failed. I don"t understand how you voted for Pro for Argument. I explained quite how his argument was flawed.....

"Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary. All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical".

1) The first sentence is nonsense (it says "some truth is logical, but logically necessary").
2) The second sentence (an untrue statement) required proof which Pro failed to provide.
I translated pro"s argument down to the crux:

all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses).
some squigs (truths) are logical and some sguigs (truths) are illogical
proving not all rams (infinite regresses) are illogical.

This kind of simple reasoning is fine and correct. However, it"s based on the proposition that all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses)""and Pro, did not prove this.

It"s clear that not all infinite regresses are illogical, and that, Pro chose the wrong path to debate so.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD

To speak of an infinite regress, there needs to be a differentiation between a potential and an actual infinite which was not provided in this debate. Pro used a potential infinite "if something is true, it must be true that it is true" to address all cases of infinite regress when that is logically fallacious as it doesn't deal with actual infinite regresses. NONETHELESS, his BoP was simply to provide one infinite regress that is not illogical according to the resolution of this debate. Pro could have simply used a deductive logical argument saying, "P1: It is not illogical for an event to precede an event," " P2: it is not illogical to have an infinite number of events" , conclusion: "It is not illogical to have an infinite regression among those events." This proves that one infinite regress is not illogical, therefore not all infinite regresses are illogical. But he used a potential infinite, which is also a good argument to prove that. While Con simply called this "wordplay," when It deals with prepositional logic so I don't see how Pro's statement lacks linguistic hygiene nor was I shown how. Arguments go to Pro.

Pro forfeited a round. Conduct goes to Con.

This was an interesting read. I thank the two participants.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
I may have trouble replying, I'll try my best, it's Christmas though (I'm already drinking and having fun with friends and family) - it was silly of me joining a debate at this time of year (I'd hoped it would have finished by now but your forfeit of round two made that impossible, oh well). If I have time I'll read your reply and type a response, if not, then have a great Christmas!!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Ah crap I missed the deadline. I'll still respond in my next round; I don't forfeit the whole debate.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
How about a basic summary of what yer arguing?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Rational_Thinker9119STAGIESTCOSINETied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, but he had better arguments and con spelt "burden" wrong in the first round.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Rational_Thinker9119STAGIESTCOSINETied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.