The Instigator
DarthVitiosus
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
mineben256
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been, that People Know Too Much

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
DarthVitiosus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 69722
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

DarthVitiosus

Pro

I have come to the understanding and truth that the problem with the world today and always has been is that people know too much. People often state people know too little. I disagree emphatically and I am fully intent on alleviating the world of the burden of the so called "geniuses" of this world. For far too long, they have raptured the planet with their "knowledge." They must be stopped. But in order to be stopped people must submit to the truth and the very resolution of this debate, "The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been is that People Know Too Much." As Pro I will examine the "knowledgeable" and show why they should be denounced, not celebrated.

I as Pro am fully intent on exposing an immediate truth that must be known, embraced, and submitted too.

NOTE: Notice I said "truth" not a fact. We each have our own truths(dreams, understandings, etc.) but not our own facts . My limited understanding is that facts can be observed and measured in reality. I am fully intent on making Con, the readers of this debate, and the voters of this debate to surrendering to the truth presented to us.
mineben256

Con

The most enlightened people are the reason we have the comforts that are often expected of us. Smart people were always and will continue to be the driving force of human progression. Knowledge is expressed in everything: We all type in the English language and we understand it. Rapid advances in networking, computer science and engineering have made the Internet possible, and with that, online debating. Medicine has reduced the infant mortality rate drastically in nations where people have access to medical facilities and the life expectancy is at it's highest point in history. This is all because of people that were smart.

As Con, I will attempt to demonstrate that the knowledgeable people are among the most important people and why they should be commended, not denounced, and that knowing "too much" has never been a threat to the world.
Debate Round No. 1
DarthVitiosus

Pro

I am Pro so I have a goal to meet the resolution. I will respond to some of Con's claims but not all since I have a limited characters to create my own arguments as well.

RESPONSE:
My opponent claims that smart people are always the driving force of progression. My opponent doesn't realize human progression inherently can not be determined by "smart" people but only by ignorant people. It is only in the recognition of ignorance do we pursue more knowledge. For example, if Western European countries weren't searching for a faster way to arrive at the Far East and India, would Columbus have "discovered" America[1]? If people had not realized that we should find faster ways of communicating, would the telephone, radio, cell phone, e-mail, and Instant Messenger ever been invented[2]?

In order to know more and study more one must admit one is ignorant. That is the very point of studying subjects and testing new theories because we know very little. To claim that the "knowledgeable" advance the world is to claim those who know a lot have advanced the world. This is simply not true, only those who understand they are ignorant attempt to test new theories, try new subjects, and search for better methods. If someone is knowledgeable, why would they test anything new? After all, they are knowledgeable.

[1]http://www.saylor.org...
[2]http://www.thegeekstuff.com...

ARGUMENTS:
1. Admission of Ignorance Has Advanced the World
Socrates-"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.[2]"
[2]http://www.brainyquote.com...

What is knowledge? If my skull was cracked open, would you see what I know? Maybe if my chest was cut open and a physician gripped my heart, would anyone truly find out what I know? Knowledge is intangible. Those who are "knowledgeable" is relative to the perspective of each person. We only study and begin to learn more in order fill our voids of ignorance. But these voids of ignorance only exist for those who understand, recognize, and accept they are ignorant. To those who are knowledgeable, there is no point to learning more since think they are knowledgeable already. Therefore, those who think they are knowledgeable are incapable of advancing the world since there is nothing to be studied or learned since they know so much about it already. We will not study HIV/AIDs or any other severe disease if we claim we are knowledgeable on the subject. HIV/AIDs is only studied more out of admission of ignorance on the subject.

mineben256

Con

mineben256 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DarthVitiosus

Pro

Extend all arguments. In closing, I have answered most of my opponent's arguments against the resolution yet Con has not responded to all of mine. My opponent forfeited the last round and has not shown any refuting arguments to the claims I as Pro made in favor of the resolution. Vote Pro.
mineben256

Con

mineben256 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SpannerWrench 2 years ago
SpannerWrench
@ DarthVitiosus

Your only comment on the mater? You are just going to abandon me with your claims?

Maybe what I first said in that one paragraph is a fallacy, but you claiming that "To those who are knowledgeable, there is no point to learning more since think they are knowledgeable already,"
could also be seen as a fallacy.

You said everything that was in that paragraph is a fallacy? You call this (the following), a fallacy?

"the entire scientific process is involved with finding out what we don't know. Not only that, it is considered bad science to assume that your experiments and conclusions are infallible."

I then said... "Anyone who claims they know everything about anything is a fool."

A parson who blatantly lies and expects people to believe them, is clearly, a fool.

"I noticed you tactfully ignored the most important line: "What is knowledge? If my skull was cracked open, would you see what I know? Maybe if my chest was cut open and a physician gripped my heart, would anyone truly find out what I know? Knowledge is intangible. Those who are "knowledgeable" is relative to the perspective of each person. "

I didn't ignore it. I just think that most of the statements therein are loosely backed opinions. Sure, with the naked eye, if I crack your skull open I won't find knowledge. However, with the correct tools scientists can view thoughts and active centers in the brain. It is also generally agreed that memories, ie. knowledge, is stored somewhere in the brain tissue. Now with modern science we have not been able to record these memories or out right view an individual's thoughts, but they are much less "intangible" as you claim.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
@Spannerwrench,

The "truly knowledgeable," No True Scotsman fallacy as is the rest of what you said.

I noticed you tactfully ignored the most important line: "What is knowledge? If my skull was cracked open, would you see what I know? Maybe if my chest was cut open and a physician gripped my heart, would anyone truly find out what I know? Knowledge is intangible. Those who are "knowledgeable" is relative to the perspective of each person. "

The fact remains ignorance and knowledge is relative to the user. You never know what someone else knows or doesn't know. If you make that claim, you are making the claim of being able to read minds. If you make that claim I am fully intent on exposing you. You have no proof at what another person knows or doesn't know. You will only know what they allow you to know whether it be conscious or subconscious.

MY ONLY COMMENT ON THE MATTER.
Posted by SpannerWrench 2 years ago
SpannerWrench
"If someone is knowledgeable, why would they test anything new? After all, they are knowledgeable. "

This is simple to answer. Fro the same reason that great inventors tested new technologies, they didn't know. They did know that there was ignorance in their subject of interest. Like you said, Socrates knew he did not know a lot.

I think you are simplifying learning too much in your argument. Progress/knowledge does not always root in ignorance. For example, in order fro me to make better rocket ships, I first need to understand astrophysics. Each of my new rocket designs is rooted in past experience. There is a layering of knowledge to further progress in a topic.

"My opponent doesn't realize human progression inherently can not be determined by "smart" people but only by ignorant people. It is only in the recognition of ignorance do we pursue more knowledge."

Ignorant people often don't realize they are ignorant at all, because they are ignorant. However, it is through the very process of experience that people realize how things could be improved. Even a man in living in a dark box his whole life may learn.

"To those who are knowledgeable, there is no point to learning more since think they are knowledgeable already. Therefore, those who think they are knowledgeable are incapable of advancing the world since there is nothing to be studied or learned since they know so much about it already."

This is bologna. Anyone who is "truly knowledgeable" knows there is always more to learn. Therefore, people who are truly knowledgeable will almost always be able to advance the world. You said that only those who recognize their ignorance can make advancement. Well, the entire scientific process is involved with finding out what we don't know. Not only that, it is considered bad science to assume that your experiments and conclusions are infallible. Anyone who claims they know everything about anything is a fool.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
@ Daniel_Nemes ,

I am glad that there are others who see this truth as well.
Posted by SpannerWrench 2 years ago
SpannerWrench
I would have taken this argument a different way than con here. I didn't respond to the debate soon enough, sadly. I will settle for this comment.

It's not that people know too much, it's that people are too insensitive or greedy to be responsible with knowledge.

"We think too much, but feel too little."

If those with knowledge always worked with the interest of helping other, either by passing on knowledge or by using their intellect to solve problems for others, then I don't believe the debate here would be happening.

In other words, knowledge is not the central problem. Greed, vanity, narcissism, and irresponsibility with knowledge is the problem. I would argue that ignorance and selfishness are the central problem.

With knowledge we can better understand others. Ignorance breeds paranoia and miss understanding.

Ignorance leads to a less healthy world. A world wear mercury in hat production is not considered unsafe. A world where keeping a layer of dirt on your body can prevent disease. A world where any jerk thinks he knows better than the scientist or doctor just because he did a quick Google search.

Ignorance and lack of experience from past generations is a set back we cannot afford.
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
Daniel_Nemes
I agree with the Instigator.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
This will be fun. I will post my reply tomorrow night.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DarthVitiosusmineben256Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture