The Instigator
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
PoloX
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

You Choose the Debate: 5 Topics

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,037 times Debate No: 10368
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

Vi_Veri

Pro

Hello hello, all. I've decided to kick start a choose your own topic debate in which I will argue as Pro or Con. My opponent will choose one of these debates and choose their side.

Actual debating will begin in Round 2, starting with me. Definitions will also be supplied in Round 2.

If there are any questions, please leave them in the comments section for me to answer.

TOPICS:

1. Disagreements between Epistemic Peers are impossible.

2. Logical Fatalism can not be disproved.

3. Terrorism can be justified.

4. Beauty is objective.

5. It is true that if an infinite being can be imagined, it must exist.
PoloX

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for providing me with a selection. However, I can't decide. I choose topic 1 and I am con. Topic 3 and I am pro. Start the debate with either. If I have to choose one and only one, say so in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
Vi_Veri

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The best of luck to him.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Set Up

I'll be taking the first debate, to stay in numerical order.

The conclusion: "Disagreements between Epistemic Peers are impossible."

My position will be PRO, as my opponent has chosen CON in this debate. He should be convincing the readers that disagreements between Epistemic Peers are, in fact, possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions pertaining to this debate.

1. Epistemic Peers

Suppose we mean by your epistemic peer someone who not only possesses all the intellectual virtues that you do (intelligence, perspicacity, honesty, thoroughness, conscientiousness, thoughtfulness, freedom from bias, sincerity in the pursuit of truth, etc.) but also someone who has been exposed to just the same arguments and evidence that you have (knowledge base about the subject).

Tom Kelly defines "epistemic peer" this way in his "The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement," in Oxford
Studies in Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne, eds,
pp. 174-75 and p. 168.

2. Disagreement

We shall take the symbol S1 and S2 to represent two Epistemic Peers in this debate.

A Disagreement: To say that S1 and S2 disagree about P just in case one of them believes P, and the other one denies P. To deny P is simply not enough for not believing P. Rather, to deny P is to believe that P is false, or to believe ~P (not P).

3. Knowledge

Collection of Justified True Belief.

2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

4. Intelligence

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

3 : the act of understanding : comprehension

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

5. Impossible

Not logically able to occur.

1 a : incapable of being or of occurring b : felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled : insuperably difficult

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent may supply and confirm my definitions next round.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction Argument

1. When S1 has a set amount of knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P.
2. If S2 has the same amount of knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P.
3. S1 has intelligence Q.
4. S2 has intelligence Q. (Same Intelligence)
5. A combination of Intelligence and Knowledge about a claim produces a Belief.
6. The combination of Intelligence and knowledge pertaining to claim P produces subject to believe P v ~P (P or ~P)
7. The combination of Intelligence Q and knowledge amount T pertaining to claim P produces subject S1 to believe ~P.
----------------------------------------------------------------
:. S2 believes ~P.

If two subjects believe the same thing, then there is no disagreement about whether to deny or accept the claim between the two subjects.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To my opponent.

Now con has the opportunity to deny any of my premises. All the fortune.

Regards,

Vi
PoloX

Con

I agree with my opponent's definitions and claims 1.-6. I simply need to prove one situation about s1 and s2 disagreeing under these definitions and claims to win this debate round. 1. S1 and S2 are vulnerable to mistakes. In math class S1 and S2 have the same teacher, notes, and opinion on math. S1 and S2 are working on the same math problem. S1 and S2 have different answers of 41 and 42. They believe that their own answer is true while the other's is false. Therefore they disagree on the answer, "p". 2. S1 and S2 can have different evaluations. They both have the same knowledge about the U.S economy and they both agree that wealthier people should have their income taxed more than people who are not wealthy. However, S1 thinks wealthy people should be taxed by a set percentage highier than those not wealthy while S2 thinks the percentage would be too high of what S1 is suggesting. S2 believes the claim of S1 is false. Therefore, they disagree. 3. Peer pressure is a factor in everyone's life. S1 and S2 have been friends since grade school. They are epistemic peers. Both of them are elected into the U.S. House of representatives. They both are liberal people. S1 believes the war in Afghanistan is a good cause, supports sending more troops and that President Obama shouldn't have set forth a year for withrawing troops. He agrees because he represents a conservative region. This contradhcts S2's claims, who represents a liberal region. Therefore, S1 and S2 have a disagreement.
Debate Round No. 2
Vi_Veri

Pro

In both cases my opponent makes the mistake of forgetting that S1 and S2 have the same rationality.

So, to his rebuttal 1:

A mistake because of faulty reasoning would not happen to only one of them, but both of them if they use the same method of reasoning.

For rebuttal 2:

S1 and S2 have the same rationality when it comes to responding to emotional stimuli - therefore, peer pressure, guilt, etc would be worked through in the same fashion. If they both have the same information on the political parties, and the same rational responses toward emotional stimuli, then they would both come to the same conclusion. They have the same emotional intelligence.

Example:

S1 is born in the blue state of Illinois.

S2 is born in the red state of Texas.

They have equal knowledge about politics. (Required for definition of epistemic peer).

The have equal rationality. (Therefore, they work their way through which political ideology is best in the same manner).

They respond to emotional stimuli in the same fashion - so if there is a sob story about liberalism that S1 believes, S2 will believe it as well. They will both hear the same sob story, as well, because that is a requirement of having equal knowledge.

Regards,

Vi Veri
PoloX

Con

My opponent points out that S1 and S2 have the same rationality and tries to use this against my case, but if you look towards my opponent's attacks on my case, they still leave out the possibility of a disagreement. on my opponents attack against my rebuttal 1: If both of them were to make a mistake at the same time. they could still have a different answer from each other. they can have to same reasoning but have different moments of when such mistakes occur. example : (x+5)5=(2x+3)5 They could have an error of distributing the five on one side different from each other and therefore could still have a different answer from each other, and may disagree with each other when both of them don't realize they both made a mistake. They can make mistakes at different parts of the problem when it is similar. They are two minds that think alike. Not, minds that are exactly the same and think the same every minute. For my opponent's attack against my rebbutal 2: my opponentforgets that i provide different peer pressure against the epistemic peers. If they both have the same response to the stimuli, which is to listen and do what they want so they can stay in office, but have different stimuli from each other, they will still disagree with each other.
Debate Round No. 3
Vi_Veri

Pro

--------------------------------
Against argument one

If S1 and S2 reason through the problem in the exact same way, they would make the exact same mistake.

My opponent says, "they can have to same reasoning but have different moments of when such mistakes occur. example : (x+5)5=(2x+3)5 They could have an error of distributing the five on one side different from each other and therefore could still have a different answer from each other"

Distributing the five in this problem is a form of reasoning. If one reasons themself into a wrong answer, the steps they use are the problem. If both S1 and S2 reason in the same fashion, then they should make the same mistake.

--------------------------------
Against argument two

My opponent once again forgets that S1 and S2 must have the same exact information about a topic before they are considered epistemic peers. If he supplies them with "different peer pressure" then they do not have the same knowledge base.

If S1 has more (harder evidence, or anymore than etc) knowledge than S2, then S1 is S2's epistemic superior.

If S1 has less (more inferior, or fewer etc) knowledge than S2, then S1 is S2's epistemic inferior.

Simply: If S1 and S2 have different knowledge about a topic, they are not epistemic peers (for they don't share the same knowledge base).

----------------------------------------
Conclusion

My opponent continues to make the mistake of not applying the same ability to reason and the same knowledge base to both S1 and S2 so as to make them Epistemic Peers.

Regards,

Vi Veri
PoloX

Con

To defend my opponents attack against my rebuttal one.

"Distributing the five in this problem is a form of reasoning. If one reasons them self into a wrong answer, the steps they use are the problem. If both S1 and S2 reason in the same fashion, then they should make the same mistake."

They make a similar mistake as each other and it doesn't have to be the exact same. Consider two people S1 and S2, They both are epistemic peers, and they know the same meaning of the word "pie". They both like it so much that they both say the word at least 3 times every hour. Does this mean they say "pie" at the exact same moment? No, it does not. epistemic peers aren't thinking the same thing at the same moment but rather, they have the same reasoning to say "pie" 3 times every hour. They are two people, with two "trains of thought", they think alike but they aren't a mimic of each other. Same with the math problem (x+5)5=(2x+3)5, S1 S2 They can make the same mistake of distributing the 5 at least once every time it is in a math problem. Does it have to happen with the same 5? No, it can be any 5 and they will be epistemic peers.

Against my opponents attack on my rebuttal two:

My opponent has forgot that they are epistemic peers and so has not come up with any real argument to consider a weighing mechanism against this. If you read in my round two "Peer pressure is a factor in everyone life. S1 and S2 have been friends since grade school. They are epistemic peers. Both of them are elected into the U.S. House of representatives. They both are liberal people." So S1 and S2 may have the same reasoning. and the same evidence of both sides of a political topic and they both personally agree about all political issues, however they both also agree to give in to peer pressure in the region they represent, so they can stay in office. the definition of epistemic peers does not include the individuals to have the same emotional stimuli since they don't have their lives don't 100% mimic each other, but rather they have a similar set of mind. S1 represents a conservative region and disagrees with S2 simply because he represents a liberal region and gives in to that peer pressure. They have the same reasoning of giving in to peer pressure, same evidence of both sides of a political topic, same age, experience. They are still epistemic peers and are disagreeing.

If you believe either of the two situations to be a possibility of epistemic peers, just one, I win this round and you should both CON because one example completely proves "Disagreements between Epistemic Peers are impossible." false.

Thank you I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Chuckle.

Didn't I say that in my RFD?
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
There's no such thing as an Epistemic Peer
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Proving that the members of this site are not epistemic peers! :D
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Incredulity at honest support for the arguments.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
What do you mean, Puck? O_o
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
4 votes to Con? Really? >.<
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
That as the point, Chrys, for him to show how Epistemic Peers can not exist :) He failed at that.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
C: Tied.

SP/G: Tied. Con, be careful about writing in solid blocks of text; but other than that, this debate was clear and reasonably easy to read.

A: Pro. It is clear that under the strict definition of "epistemic peer" that Pro uses, it is impossible for such to disagree. Pro does a good job establishing this, and Con only came up with disagreements that necessitate varying from the given definition.

It is also clear that "epistemic peers," as defined by Pro, cannot exist.

By virtue alone of living in separate bodies, we all have slightly different experiences; it is absurd to suppose that there could exist two people (ignoring the thorny issue of co-joined twins) with exactly the same "intelligence, perspicacity, honesty, thoroughness, conscientiousness, thoughtfulness, freedom from bias, sincerity in the pursuit of truth," and experiences.

Different people have access to wildly varying information, both from teaching and from everyday experiences; obviously the categories quoted above will be affected by even minuscule variations in experience (if they can even be measured in the first place). To truly be "epistemic peers" as defined by Pro, the people in question must be identical in thought processes and information acquired.

By extension, they must even be identical in appearance; as differing in aspect will cause others to react differently to them, providing them with varying emotional/experiental information.

In short, to truly be "epistemic peers" the people in question must be identical in all respects; an absurdity, and clearly not to be considered as a workable definition for real life.

However, Con did not argue that "epistemic peers" are impossible; he attempted to show ways in which they might disagree. Unfortunately, all of those ways included giving one of the two different information than the other, in defiance of the definition. Even Con, it seems, cannot get two identical beings to disagree...

S: Pro.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Great. Obviously no one actually read this debate before voting, other than omelet.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
If I was CON, I would have just argued that they could disagree with the proposition "S1 definitely exists."

And that's without using an irrational epistemological framework.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jaylik 7 years ago
Jaylik
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kenetic 7 years ago
Kenetic
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoloX 7 years ago
PoloX
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Vi_VeriPoloXTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70