The Instigator
StephenWicker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TrasguTravieso
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Scientism Is False

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,162 times Debate No: 30336
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

StephenWicker

Con

For the defintion of "Scientism" we will use The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought: "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

Essentially, scientific testing is the sole path to truth.

R1: Pre-debate remarks, check-in/acceptance from opponent.

R2: Opening Statements

R3: 1st Rebuttals

R4: 2nd Rebuttals/Conclusions
TrasguTravieso

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
StephenWicker

Con

DEBATE CANCELLED.

I gave myself the con position in error. I was in fact hoping for someone to argue the con-position, but
as it turns out, my opponent in this thread completely agrees with me.

I will probably start a new debate thread on this topic.
TrasguTravieso

Pro

DEBATE CANCELLED

(this should be relatively quick)
Debate Round No. 2
StephenWicker

Con

It looked like this thing wasn't going to be cancelled, and I didn't want the time to run out.
TrasguTravieso

Pro

I informed Airmax of the situation. I assume he'll get around to it.
Debate Round No. 3
StephenWicker

Con

StephenWicker forfeited this round.
TrasguTravieso

Pro

A tie it is.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
@Magic8000 You have opened a whole new world of possibilities
Posted by SovereignDream 4 years ago
SovereignDream
@Flip

Alex Rosenberg
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Or you guys could contact airmax (DDO admin) and have him delete the debate.

Here's his profile
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by StephenWicker 4 years ago
StephenWicker
Good solution! I will do that, thanks.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Ah, well, seeing as I completely agree with you, what say we put a quick end to this and call it a draw? If you just type (debate cancelled) or something of the like as your round of the debate, I will do the same thing and then we will ask any readers not to vote for either of us. It would count as a draw and you could start the debate again and see if you get any takers who don't take the same position as you do.
Posted by StephenWicker 4 years ago
StephenWicker
@TrasguTravieso, you are indeed correct, I am new here (still getting used to things) called myself Con inadvertently. With regard to Flip's comment, I would say I am not aware of any philosopher of scientist who actually advocates Scientism, but I have run across many people who nonetheless seem to endorse it. I was hoping to find someone who could actually lay out a case for it. (Because up to now, I've never really heard one)
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Actually, in looking at StephenWicker's profile, I see he declares himself a Christian and has taken other debates in which he supports theism. I am forced to wonder if he did not call himself con inadvertently... Or perhaps he wishes to play devil's advocate.

If you read this, would you care to clarify?
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
@Philochristos because that would place him in the rather uncomfortable position of shouldering the burden of proof.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Introspection: thinking about thoughts, we use thoughts to prove that thoughts exist, that's not science. You should also define the scientific model.

Law of non-contradiction: No two absolutes can contradict each other. Science does not deal with this. Yet we know it to be true.

Law of excluded middle: If a is true, its negation cannot be true. Science has nothing to do with this either.

Law of identity: A=A, not proven by science.

The mind: it exists, but we don't know that because of science.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Why not make the resolution "Scientism is True" and be Pro? That would be more simple than the way you did it because the way you did it entails two negatives in one claim: "It's false that scientism is false."
No votes have been placed for this debate.