The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

To Say Human Logic Is Limited Makes No Sense

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 2 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 69549
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Esiar

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3-4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion

I will be debating that, to say "Human knowledge is limited, so it cannot be fully trusted." is self-contradictory.
Envisage

Con

Ah, why not, I will bite.

I will be arguing that human logic is limited, and that this proposition is coherent, as per the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

You're using human logic. With that human logic, you concluded that the logic you are using isn't fully trustworthy. Why should I accept that conclusion if you're saying that the logic you used to come to that conclusion is faulty?

In shorter words: You are using human logic to determine that human logic is limited, therefore the argument defeats itself.

It makes a lot of sense on the surface, but it is self-refuting.

Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

Positive Case

Analytic vs. Synthetic Knowledge
Immanuel Kant argues at length Thor the distinction between what is known a priori, of which constructs such as mathematics and logic fall withing, and what is know a posterori, which is what existential claims, and inductive claims regarding the physical world fall within.

The argument is, even if we have absolute certainty of our logical constructs, and know they are perfectly internally consistent, then we are still limited. This is because there is no a priori justifiable way to know things a posterori (synthetic). All a posterori claims are necessarily experienced via. the senses, and thus are fallible. This is widely recognised in philosophy because philosophies such as naive realism, the notion that we see reality as it really is, has been widely discredited. Other ontologies such as model-dependant realism, the notion that we construct an approximate model of reality in our minds, is significantly more sound.

This is further underlined by Heidegger in Being & Time, where we simply do not have an a priori understanding what it means "to be", logic is simply incapable of bridging the gap between conceptualising ideas, and conceptualising existance. At best we can only give a model, or approximation, such as in dasein ("to be there").

Thus to summarise, human logic is at the very least, limited in it's application, and scope. This is cogent without being internally contradictory either, there is a reason why philosophical problems such as David Hume's Problem of Induction stand the test of time.

Rebuttals


There are at least two ways one can argue against "human logic":

1. By attacking it's cognitivism
2. By attacking it's internal consistency

Internal Consistency
To affirm the latter, IF we assume the position that Human logic is valid, then it follows that contradictions are impossible. If they were possible then the system would essentially be rendered be meaningless to us. An example argument one can give is:

A: Human logic is correct (Assumption for reducio ad absurdum)
1. If human logic is correct, then A is true
2. If human logic is correct, then A is false
3. Both A and not A (from A&1, and A&2)
4. A entails a contradiction, therefore A is false

Note that the conclusion and entire argument was made by assuming the antithesis (human logic is correct), thus we have demonstrated that human logic is internally incoherent. Thus in a fundemental level, is meaningless to humans. This is only a problem IF one maintains the assumption that human logic is correct, but that's exactly the thing that these types of arguments are holding in dispute.

Cognitivism
This is probably the wrong word, but epistemological nihilism is a well-known position, which holds there are no truths. One argument for this is that we simply do not have direct access to 'objective truth', and nothing objective to ground the definition of what 'true' and 'false' are into. Thus the objective notion of true and false is rejected on the grounds that there are no 'truth conditions' for something to be 'true', it is simply non-cognitive. One *could* utilise a subjective epistemology,and ground truth in properly basic things, such as incorrigable mental states, etc. This would be an internally coherent way of arguing that an objective 'human logic' is not sustainable.
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

"thus we have demonstrated that human logic is internally incoherent."
And you've used human logic to reach this conclusion. To use human logic to conclude the logic you are using is fallible is internally inconsistent.
Envisage

Con

Yes, I used human logic, that is how a reducio ad absurdum works, by assuming the antithesis of the conclusion to be true to derive a contradiction, or absurdity.[1] Thus human logic can in principle be shown to be absurd by it's own standard. Thus human logic can in principle be shown to be self-defeating, self refuting or simply incoherent.

References:
1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Pro

If the logic you used to come to that conclusion is incoherent, why should I believe the conclusion?
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro for this debate.

Rebuttals:

Either one has to:
1. Reject the logic used to make the conclusion
or
Accept the conclusion

In either case, human logic has been shown to be internally incoherent.

Summary:
Pro drops my arguments from knowability of a posterori claims from a priori principles, and drops my arguments from cognitivism. Thus a Con vote is required.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
@Envisage

- WTF man, I am always left out!!!
Posted by Tminusfour20 2 years ago
Tminusfour20
I completely agree. Human knowledge is the only thing we have for certain. Why wouldn't we use it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
EsiarEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some impressive arguments that Pro was unable to refute. Con cited a single reference, winning the Sources points too.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
EsiarEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped several of Con's arguments, so arguments to Con. Only Con had sources.