The Instigator
Ahriman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valladarex
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true by interpretation of perspective viewer.

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...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,143 times Debate No: 32450
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Ahriman

Pro

After reading through debates on god and morality, I questioned the ultimate usefulness of such arguments in general as most people partaking in them leave with a stronger conviction than when they started.
Debate has its purpose in coming to a consensus, or agreement.
Paradox, or the binding of two opposite principles pervades every inch of our limited limitless universe, with dark matter and gravity pushing/pulling together what dark energy pushes/pulls constantly apart.
Heat and Cold are also two explainable ultimately unexplainable polar extremes that own their own seperate nature while also meeting in the middle to create a life sustaining planet.

Though self proclamized not to be a man of much reading Leonardo da Vinci put a large amount of emphasis on personal experience as the teacher of man. But personal experience is weighted by transpersonal experience or the experience of the whole.
Many deeply personal experiences in history have resulted in transpersonal Religions and Customs. The Meditations of Buddha and Prayers of Jesus left different lasting impressions on culture worldwide, although many of their personal struggles could be veiwed as strikingly similar. One Might say there is a Supreme Immutable God beyond thought and comprehension, also beyond all material form. The other might claim that there is no god, only constant flux of an endless cycle of now which we create and experience, seperate only of nirvana, or unmanifest being. Meanwhile science maintains a primordial atom which housed all current matter, time, and space in it's grasp, before it gave itself for creation and duplication.
Many worldviews hold a similar approach of creation, although each is tainted with personal dogma. As each of us carries and creates our own through our personal, transpersonal, experiences. In the Argument for Athiesm I agree. In the Argument for Theism I agree. As I see no difference in description. Only transpersonal interpretation.
Valladarex

Con

The question is whether or not truth is perspective. What should first be done is to define truth.

I will go with these definitions that the Merriam Webster dictionary gives:
Truth: (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)

With truth defined, I will now give three theories of truth.

The correspondence theory:
"The theory"s answer to the question, "What is truth?" is that truth is a certain relationship, the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact. Perhaps an analysis of the relationship will reveal what all the truths have in common."

The neo-classical correspondence theory:
"The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity, "a fact", to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false."

The coherence theory:
"A Coherence Theory of Truth will claim that a proposition is true if and only if it coheres with ___. For example, one Coherence Theory fills this blank with "the beliefs of the majority of persons in one's society". Another fills the blank with "one's own beliefs", and yet another fills it with "the beliefs of the intellectuals in one's society". The major coherence theories view coherence as requiring at least logical consistency."

What each of these theories hold in common is that they allow for claims to be false. For example, I will give a proposition and claim.
Proposition 1: 1 = 1
Proposition 2: 1 + 1 = 2.
Claim: 1 + 1 does not = 3. This is truth because there exists an appropriate entity,"a fact", to which it corresponds. The fact is 1 + 1 =2.

Since we can determine truths without the need of a perspective, Pro's claim inevitably fails.

I will now address Pro's statements.

"After reading through debates on god and morality, I questioned the ultimate usefulness of such arguments in general as most people partaking in them leave with a stronger conviction than when they started."

The usefulness of arguments should not be an indicator of whether or not truth can be found. There are arguments where both sides completely disagree in the end, and there are arguments where a person concedes. It doesn't make truth any less real in either situation.

"Debate has its purpose in coming to a consensus, or agreement."
The very fact that you claim debate has purpose in coming to a consensus shows that people can change their point of views by seeing evidence for one side being true. The perspectives they previously held could then be considered false, unless the evidence presented if falsified or evidence arises for a different idea.

"Paradox, or the binding of two opposite principles pervades every inch of our limited limitless universe, with dark matter and gravity pushing/pulling together what dark energy pushes/pulls constantly apart."

The definition of paradox you gave is a bit off. I will go by Merriam Webster's dictionary again: "an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises". Given this definition, there is no paradox between dark matter, gravity, and energy. Gravity is a well understood physical concept, while dark matter and dark energy are still being researched. Since we don't know enough about these ideas, we certainly could not assume they are actually paradoxical with each other. The nature of these things certainly do not make truth unattainable either. Qualities and characteristics of the universe can be understood and quantified.

"Heat and Cold are also two explainable ultimately unexplainable polar extremes that own their own seperate nature while also meeting in the middle to create a life sustaining planet."
If by heat, you mean the "form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation", then it is completely explainable through science. I think the problem here is in relating a scientific phenomenon, heat, to an adjective, cold, that is used to describe a certain amount of heat in relative terms. Cold is not a scientific property. It is a description of something that is relative to different quantities of heat. For example, 100 degrees Celsius is cold compared to 200 degrees Celsius.

"Many worldviews hold a similar approach of creation, although each is tainted with personal dogma. As each of us carries and creates our own through our personal, transpersonal, experiences. In the Argument for Athiesm I agree. In the Argument for Theism I agree. As I see no difference in description. Only transpersonal interpretation."
I'm not sure how you see no difference in description. One is the disbelief in God, the other is the belief in God. One could not logically agree with both as they are contradictory.

I now bring it back to you.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Ahriman

Pro

First I will Combat Con's Statement "Since we can determine truths without the need of a perspective, Pro's claim inevitably fails."
We can not determine truths without need of perspective, but rather use perspective to determine truth. Truth Is continually being sought out by science but it can never be had as scientific theory, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" continually kills itself for new more up to date understandings and relations on the nature of the universe. Con states:"The nature of these things certainly do not make truth unattainable either. Qualities and characteristics of the universe can be understood and quantified." He fails to give a definition of the theory of Dark energy which postulates an expanding universe as each galaxy can be measured to be moving further away from those surrounding galaxies. A puzzling aspect of our universe which "Truth is still hidden".
My Opponent Appreciates Merriam-Webster so here is Dark Energy: a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Clearly two opposing factors in a universe ruled by cause and effect seems paradoxical.

I surrender to your definition and description of heat as I can't disagree with evidence presented in the matter.
though ultimately the truth of Heat and less heat is still unexplainable as is the particles that constitute its function.

The Wavicle: "An electron is a tiny tiny bit of matter. The scientists in 1920"s fired a stream of electrons through a single slit and they behaved like a particle would be expected to. They then fired the stream of electrons through two slits and they got two lines. Great, just what they expected, until they left the room".. When they left the room the electrons acted like a wave and a particle, they got an interference pattern and bands. But again, when they were in the room, the electrons acted like particles and produced two strips."--"But the quantum world is far more complex than this. When they observed the electron it went back to behaving like a particle and produced two bands, not an interference pattern of many. The very act of measuring or observing which slit it would go through meant it only went through one and not both. The electron decided to act differently as though it was aware it was being watched."
This evidence leaves one to wonder how objective science can truly be when the results of scientific query are influenced by sheer conscious awareness. How then can we "determine truths without the need of a perspective,"?

"I'm not sure how you see no difference in description. One is the disbelief in God, the other is the belief in God. One could not logically agree with both as they are contradictory."
I Sire, Believe God is absence of all that constitutes nature and thus can not be held by any natural law or thought derived from it. God Is Nothing, and I believe in god.
I hope I'm not as crazy as you make me feel, but then again, what is paradox? :)
Back to you
Valladarex

Con

I will break this into sections to ease the reading.

Scientific Theory:

Pro states that "We can not determine truths without need of perspective, but rather use perspective to determine truth. Truth Is continually being sought out by science but it can never be had as scientific theory, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" continually kills itself for new more up to date understandings and relations on the nature of the universe."
The first thing I'd like to point out is the problem with your definition of scientific theory. The definition you gave appears to be from the Merriam Dictionary definition of theory alone. This definition is not specifically designated for scientific theory, but for more general terms. For example, a non-scientist could say they have a theory about how something unrelated to science works.

This surely doesn't mean scientific theory though. This is from the National Academies Press:
"Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations."
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Of course, there is always a chance that a well understood scientific theory or law, such as gravity, could be flawed. But for application in every day life, it is so dependable and consistent that sane people don't question it's validity. This truth is not dependent on perspective, but rather the immense amount of evidence that anyone can observe every day. There is no logical perspective that Newton's laws of universal gravitation aren't true in the macroscale.
In this circumstance, it is evident that truth can be found through science. A perspective that this law does not apply to someone's life is not true, to an astronomically high degree of certainty (I'm not trying to prove objective truth exists).


"He fails to give a definition of the theory of Dark energy which postulates an expanding universe as each galaxy can be measured to be moving further away from those surrounding galaxies. A puzzling aspect of our universe which "Truth is still hidden"."
I failed to give a definition of "the theory of Dark energy" because there is no such theory. As you said, Dark energy is "a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe". As a hypothesis, it gives an idea of what is actually happening with the universe. As an example of proving that truth is perspective, I don't follow. I don't see where perspective plays a role in this. Scientists aren't necessarily true in believing one idea over another just because of a perspective they have. One may be correct, one may be wrong. Both may be correct, and both may be wrong.

Also, I think there is still a misconception between what is considered paradoxical and what isn't. Two opposing forces are not paradoxical. For example, a rocket using fuel to oppose the force of gravity is perfectly rational. The laws of motion explains this in detail. The opposing forces in the universe may not be fully understood, but I don't see the paradox in this natural phenomenon. Again, a paradox is "an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises". An example would be Curry's paradox: "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists". I'll link a wiki page with a ton of examples.

Perspective:
Pro states: "This evidence leaves one to wonder how objective science can truly be when the results of scientific query are influenced by sheer conscious awareness. How then can we "determine truths without the need of a perspective,"?"
In finding scientific explanations to questions like "why do electrons act as both waves and particles?", we don't leave things to perspective. We find the answers through the scientific method. Just because we don't have all the answers right now doesn't mean we should allow all people's perspectives to be deemed true.

God and Atheism:
Pro explains "I Sire, Believe God is absence of all that constitutes nature and thus can not be held by any natural law or thought derived from it. God Is Nothing, and I believe in god."
If you believe in God, yet you think he is not part of the universe, then you are a Theist. An Atheist doesn't believe that God is the "absence of all that constitutes nature". They flat out disbelieve any such idea of one.

As an Agnostic Deist, I could relate to the belief that God isn't part of the universe. An impersonal god makes most sense to me personally, but I am still definitely not an Atheist.

"I hope I'm not as crazy as you make me feel, but then again, what is paradox?"
Don't worry, I don't think you are crazy. You just have a different set of experiences and observations than me.
:)

Back to you.

Sources:
http://www.nap.edu...;
http://vixra.org...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Ahriman

Pro

Ahriman forfeited this round.
Valladarex

Con

As pro has not demonstrated that his resolution is true, I urge all voters to vote con. I have demonstrated that truth is not dependent on perspective, and that not all perspectives are true.

I thank Ahriman for a great first debate. I enjoyed it very much! :)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ahriman 4 years ago
Ahriman
Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true. differed only by interpretation in perspective viewer.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are meaning.
Posted by Ahriman 4 years ago
Ahriman
Wasn't familiar with him, but most definitely.
thanks for the reference, got some reading to do now.
Posted by campbellp10 4 years ago
campbellp10
Straight up Kierkegaard.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
AhrimanValladarexTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Last round FF
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
AhrimanValladarexTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I was iffy on decision until FF. Arguments and conduct Con. Sources also Con. Both have good S/G.