The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

cause and effect is logic

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 1 vote the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 73847
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there is no logic in fantasy

logic is absolute

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? logic is determined by matter, not by your thoughts.. you crazy person :)

you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect, absolute

if apples became poisonous today, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples(morality)?

logic+(and)experience of it=(is)reason(the concept, mental simulation of logic)

reason+intent=morality
18Karl

Con

FRAMEWORK

This debate is about the concept of causality. The opposition has taken the rationalist approach to the problem, saying that in essence, cause and effect is "logical" i.e. so to say, cause and effect is known through "thinking about it" alone. Before I go on with my arguments, I would like to define several terms.

The definition of "Causality" is the principle "that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)"

By logic, what is meant here is that everything "logical" can be proven a priori.

Hence the BoP of the opposition to prove that the concept of causality is indeed known a priori, whilst my baseline is that the concept of causality is known a posteriori.

ARGUMENTS

1
. Cause/Effect is proven A Posteriori

When Thomas Palley made his Watchmaker Analogy, in his highly influential yet very dogmatic work Natural Theology, he necessarily attempted to, via analogy, show that the universe must have been designed, as it is perfect. However, several future philosophers, Hume included, simply refuted this upon one ground: we have an idea of a watchmaker. We do not have an idea of a universe-maker. This is ultimately the very disproof of cause/effect.

Cause and effect is rooted in our inductiveness-we cannot prove that for "a cause" there is an "effect" in a priori terms. This is because, perhaps, the a priori realm does not need cause and effect. Only we can experience cause and effect, and cause/effect is an empirical thing on these regards. Since all notions of cause-effect depend upon a synthetical a posteriori claim of something i.e. "when I fart, the room smells", to prove cause-effect using a priori methods will result in necessary confusion.

REFUTATIONS

The opponent talks about a pragmatic case for cause-effect which is merely apart from the point. The resolution remains NEGATED!

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

the concept of causality/mental simulaton of logic is reason, im talking about logic

any cause and effect relation is logic

know=Physical experience

there is no logic in fantasy

i dont see any negation..

where is the confusion..
18Karl

Con


If "know=Physical experience" then the empiricist epistemology behind cause/effect is valid. Is any cause and effection relation "logic?" I think this goes against "know=Physical experience" of opponent, which states that if we don't have physical experience, we won't "know" so to say. So if cause and effect is "logic" so to say, and then "know=Physical Experience," since logic is necessarily a priori then we don't know cause and effect, because we have no physical experience of it. Hence, negation!

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

physical experiecne is cause and effect :)

why do you see when your eyes are open?

reality is logic, and sensory experience is the only way to experience reality

i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed
18Karl

Con


If "know=Physical experience" then the empiricist epistemology behind cause/effect is valid. Is any cause and effection relation "logic?" I think this goes against "know=Physical experience" of opponent, which states that if we don't have physical experience, we won't "know" so to say. So if cause and effect is "logic" so to say, and then "know=Physical Experience," since logic is necessarily a priori then we don't know cause and effect, because we have no physical experience of it. Hence, negation!

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

physical experience is logic ..
18Karl

Con

If physical experience is logic, then is rationalism empiricism? Definition of logic necessarily makes logic a priori, hence, are you saying that physical experience can be known without experience?


Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

i dont know empiricism

are you saying that its more healthy to eat a poisonous apple then a normal apple? the apple determines this
18Karl

Con

Cause and effect is still not known a priori, but a posteriori. No arguments have been presented for an a priori account of the epistemology of cause-effect. Hence, negated!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
vi_spex18KarlTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con was the only person to post a single coherent argument the entire debate. Pro went form asserting some random equation to asking rhetorical questions. Pro's grammar as also horrific in so many ways including lack of punctuation and capitalization.