The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phiLockeraptor
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

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...
phiLockeraptor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 66968
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, to suggest they do is suggesting I can see others memories
phiLockeraptor

Con

Since the pro is arguing that facts and knowledge can only come from ones own memory, the Con must be able to hold a counter-example which proves that knowledge can either be held without memory, or that others memories can be accessed.

1. Knowledge Without Memory

A. Mathematics.

We can count to a number we hadn't before, even though we hadn't memorized that number. Operations such as addition can give us the answer to an equation and what it represents without prior knowledge or memory. One example is two red fish and three blue fish; Add them together and you get five fish in total. First off, discounting irrelevant information is something we can do without memory. Second, two and three making five is knowledge that is not an inherent property of either number. Thus, new knowledge is gathered without memory.

B. Documentation

If one writes down everything, then they have no need to use their own memory to recall it. just think of a cheat sheet on a test!

2. Others Memory

A. Reminders

All one needs to look to is the statement " remind me to...". This shows what is, in retrospect, plainly obvious: we rely on the memories of others all the time!

B. Cross-Apply Documentation

Almost all of our knowledge comes from the prior knowledge of others. Take history, for instance: looking at the recording of others memories to get new knowledge about the past. The same applies to instructional videos.

3. Flaws in the resolution

A. Facts.

This resolution leaves no room for interpretation (that was a joke, but not really). Statistics are one thing, but the interpretation of them requires logical deductions that have nothing to do with memory, such as the statement that " higher depression among gay children means gayness is an illness that must be cured" .

B. Error

Memories are not perfect. If the only facts come from memory, which anyone will tell you is faulty, then there can be no objective facts. This is plainly false, as unreliable witness testimony does not change the fact that a murder has taken place, and no amount of forgetfulness changes what physical experience one actually went through.

C. Emotion

The feeling of being heartbroken is not physical, but we still develop trust issues. Thus, experiences that are not necessarily physical can contribute to knowledge

Con has provided sufficient counter-examples. He has done so without memory, which is another point in favor of con. If one of these counter-examples still stands by the end of the debate, then Cons burden of clash has been fulfilled, and The resolution falls. If so, vote con!
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

knowledge is memory of personal physical experience, and facts are past observations

math is about what is true, not about truth, an equation goes to true or false, not truth

truth can only be in the past, and truth is knowledge, know is true, and belief is false

belief=false=future
kNow=true=now
knowledge=truth=past

I can at best believe what others tell me, unless they are talking about something here now or I share experiences with them from the past

the main point here that counters what you say is, facts are truth, not true, not matter, not now

if I don't remember, I have to imagine the rest of the memory, and it becomes a belief. there are different kinds of knowledge thou like muscle memory

facts are subjective, knowledge is subjective, and know is objective, I know is matter, as I can see these words with my eyes

I don't have to counter all of your examples... as they are based on the same flaws
phiLockeraptor

Con

I'm gonna call abuses, since Pro uses semantical arguments that go against common sense even though he never made such a claim in the first round.

pro has not refuted my mathematical claim.

Pro has conceded that memory is unreliable, because we reimagine what we forget. Thus, no true knowledge can come from ones on memory; even if knowledge can come from nowhere else either, the resolution cannot be upheld without memory as a standard for knowledge. This turns in favor of con.

Pro has not refuted cons critique of the resolution, which is separate from the counter examples above it.

For all of these reasons, vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

im gonna call you a cop out, as you have no counters

math has nothing to do with facts, as facts are in the past and math is about what is true, and true is only now

if I don't remember... then I have to imagine....
phiLockeraptor

Con

I apologize in advance for the lack of organized bullet points. I am merely responding to the Pro's chosen format as best as I can.

Rebuttal and Extension

Documentation has been conceded by Pro. To reittirate: The written word enables us to draw upon memory that is not our own. This actually answers the "if I don't remember, I have to imagine" argument quite nicely, as documentation provides a means with which to circumvent this issue.


Facts are not merely about the past. It is a fact that human beings normally possess four limbs. If Pro wants to play semantical games, that's fine, but it doesn't actually change the core of the argument.

Perhaps Pro is trying to get at the unreliability of memories. To answer this, I posit that this is the very reason that we must draw upon the memories of others. One person's memory is much less likely to be true than, say, a consensus of ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. Ten thousand direct witnesses are much more indicitive of fact than one. Thus, we draw upon others memories in order to test the validity of our conclusions.

Pro does not address the emotional issue. The fact of the matter is, interpersonal relationships, and our evaluation of the character of individuals, has a lot to do with gut instinct. For example, a bald man with a swastika tattoo spewing racial expletives might not be the most tolerant person. One does not need to have memory of meeting this man to deduce this fact.

Pro ignores arguments about deduction in general. I don't have to have memory to know that X=X, or that If A is B and B is C then A is C.

-

Real World Impacts

Real World Impacts are impacts that happen in the real world as a result of buying Pro's argument.


Let's see what happens when we extend Pro's logic to its ultimate conclusion.

1. The only source of knowledge we can rely upon is our own memory
2. Other people's memory is invalid, and cannot be taken account.
3. Since we can't have any knowledge of thoughts/feelings/memories of other people, we can't be sure they exist.

From this, we get some very unfavorable impacts.

1. Collaborative Work becomes impossible. Expert Testimony is unreliable. We cannot trust any knowledge garnered from science. This would mean that Engineering, Physics, Astrophysics, and the fact that the Earth is round can't be taken into account. This is the reality of the Pro (Affirmative) world. As this would invalidate essentially every scientific achievement, period, our daily living becomes impossible when operating under Pro's school of thought.

2. In the Pro world, Murder becomes justified. Because there is absolutely no way to be certain of memories/thoughts/feelings of others, we can't be certain that they're alive, or even truly exist. This would allow commonplace murder to become permissible. As this is a generally disagreeable state of things, for the sake of preserving basic morality, and society in general, we have to operate under the assumption that every person has their own thoughts/feelings/memories.

3. This debate cannot be voted on, and you must default to the Contender.

Pro's position is ultimately self-defeating. If we can't know the thoughts or memories of others, then we can't actually gain any new knowledge from Pro's, or anybody elses, argument. Thus, unless the voter is literally born with a Solipsistic mindset (which is impossible), no further conclusion is gathered from this debate and the voter can default to Con.

If you don't buy the default-to-con argument, that's fine. If Pro wins, the most this debate can be without accepting the Con way of looking at things is to not vote at all.

Given that voting on which position convinces us most, Pro's position goes against the very purpose of public debate in the first place.




For all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

how do you know the information is correct

the paper and the words written I would be able to see is there, but anything written I have to iamgien is true unless its speaking of something now, like you are reading these words, you don't have to imagine that is false, as you know its true

it is true I have 4 limbs as i physically experience it, i know it, and I have plenty memory of others to confirm that human beings have 4 limbs, the fact is my memory

you don't know, what others remember, you cant see it, you have to imagine it, so its not a past observation, like superman is not a past observation beyond what I remember happening as light on my screen when I see superman in a movie

I can at best believe what others tell me, as I have to imagine it, and belief is false, not truth, not knowledge

knowledge=free will

without memories there is no self-awareness as a human

you have reason, memories, physical experience and imagination to discern weather you like a person or not

do you think you can experience what other people think??? how does that happen exagtly, you grab their thoughts with your hands?

im talking about what is true, morality is an imaginary system guided by logic which is true, you are just chaning scope into these wilds assumptions.

are facts knowledge or belief?
phiLockeraptor

Con

Once again, I apologize in advance for the lack of organization. To make up for it. I will make an attempt at line-by-line.

Line-by-Line

"how do you know the information is correct". Education degrees, centuries of research, etc. all add to the credibility of the source.

Besides, trust is an essential part of human society. Without it, we could not have a Constitution, a set of laws, any representatives, tax collectors, or basic exchange of goods/trade. For more information, look at this paper on the social contract (http://papers.ssrn.com...)

We know information is correct because of the reputation of the person, and our own logical reasoning skills, as opposed to memory. None of this is in support of the Pro position.


"the paper and the words written I would be able to see is there, but anything written I have to iamgien is true unless its speaking of something now, like you are reading these words, you don't have to imagine that is false, as you know its true"

The problem with this logic is that you could easily extend this to physical experience as well.

"How do you know that the pain you feel when touching a hot stove is real? I mean, sure, you know that your nerves are sending electronic signals, but how do you know the information contained within them is real?"

Remember, Pro is arguing that we can only trust physical experience. Therefore, if Pro's own framework goes against being able to trust physical experience, they have not upheld that physical experience is the only thing we can trust. Instead, Pro has proven that we can trust nothing, which turns in favor of Con because they haven't fulfilled their burden of proof.

"it is true I have 4 limbs as i physically experience it, i know it, and I have plenty memory of others to confirm that human beings have 4 limbs, the fact is my memory"

Pro is claiming that they have seen each and every one of the 7 billion people on Earth. This is blatantly false, as simply counting to 7 billion takes more than a lifetime (http://www.infoplease.com...) multiply this by 7 and you get over 200 years). The conclusion that everyone normally has four limbs is only gathered through logical reasoning, and analytical reasoning (Four limbs being an inherent property of humans).

These are methods of gaining this knowledge that go outside of physical experience, and prove Con right.

"you don't know, what others remember, you cant see it, you have to imagine it, so its not a past observation, like superman is not a past observation beyond what I remember happening as light on my screen when I see superman in a movie"

Extend my multiple-witnesses point. If one person remembers something, then it is up for doubt. However, if ten thousand, or ten million, people report the exact same thing (we're talking real world events, not theology), then it is much more credible.

Pro's memory point turns in favor of Con, because he is proving the unreliability of a single human memory. He is setting up the groundwork to explain why relying on multiple memories is better than relying on ones own, and nothing else.

"I can at best believe what others tell me, as I have to imagine it, and belief is false, not truth, not knowledge"

See above. We can extend this to all of our senses, including physical experience.

Besides, you have the opportunity to test that knowledge yourself. While this may fall under the realm of physical experience at face-value, consider this: Under Pro's logic, how do we trust the scientific instruments, or the people who built them,if we can't trust anything but what our own senses limit us to? This ties in to the real world impact, which Pro did not address. How do we trust the scientific method? The answer, of course, is collaboration, and relying on the statements of others, which further upholds my multiple-witnesses point.

"without memories there is no self-awareness as a human"

Newborns must not be human then. Neither are amnesiacs. Be careful throwing around arbitrary definitions of human, because it comes back to bite you when you extend the logic beyond the point you're trying to make.

To fully answer this, I submit that everyone has to learn a first thing. There is always that first thing we learn, whether that's to crawl, or to move, or to interpret faces. We do this without any prior knowledge. If we're not self-aware before memories, then we can't form memories in the first place.

"you have reason, memories, physical experience and imagination to discern weather you like a person or not"

This doesn't address the core of my point, although I'll admit that I was a bit unclear.

The core of my point is that we rely on hormonal reactions to fuel our "knowledge" of people all the time. These are internal, physical experiences, that can sometimes lead us astray. If our own experience was the end all be all, then this wouldn't be the case.
-
Conclusion
Extend all of my real-world impacts. Pro did not address the justification for Murder inherent within his ideology, nor the stunting of scientific development. He didn't acknowledge the self-defeating property of his position either.

Con has rebuked all of Pro's points, showing them to be illogical and impractical to the point of justifying moral atrocities.

For all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

religion=to rely on

I have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason to truth or distrust

information is false and truth, not true

I have to imagine nerves sensing electrical signals, information is separation, I am one is true

do you want me to burn you? why not..

physical experience is necessary, no trust involved, you are dead without your senses

now you are just entertaining, I didn't use soft language like you but I easily can.. "human beings as I know them", done

I can at best believe what others tell me. imagination is future, and memory can only be in the past

so because everyone is more credible to you as a mass, shouldn't you be a Christian? just go with whatever the masses is required to believe, annnnd also its a fallacy, only personal physical experience of now is true, therefore even if everyone on earth said the same thing and you disagree... this gives them no advantage, as the definition of true is not determined by humans, but by existence

sense=physical experience=true
non sense=Imagination and memory=false and truth

you are a theist to science, and science is your god

new borns are not selfaware, as they have no memory

memories come from now, experience is only now

look I can make it real easy, did I just look at my dog, is it a fact that I just looked at my dog? actually, I don't have a dog, but am I now lying about not having a dog in which case it could be a fact? how do you know

what my opinion has to do with murder is irrelevant... im talking about what is true

to me... the police force is necessary, being mechanical is necessary, for jobs, beliefs are necessary... this is you sidetracking
phiLockeraptor

Con

This is the last round, so I'll restate the undisputed criterion for winning the core of the argument (this is outside of the argumentation in general, which includes the real-world impacts, critiques, and rebuttals)

"Since the pro is arguing that facts and knowledge can only come from ones own memory, the Con must be able to hold a counter-example which proves that knowledge can either be held without memory, or that others memories can be accessed."

With that in mind, I'll begin the line-by-line

Line-by-Line

"religion=to rely on"

This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the debate at hand. Instead, it is merely a display of Pro's potential personal motives/bias in starting this debate. Therefore, it should not be taken into account.


"I have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason to truth or distrust"

Two things. One, this assertion by Pro is blatantly false, as this entire debate was sparked by an extreme amount of doubt on their part.

Two, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the "memories-are-faulty" argument (it would have to be, because there is no other place where this would make contextual sense to apply.)

The faultiness of our memory has nothing to do with theological doubt and belief. Instead, it is a simple matter of the objective memory deterioration that happens even to the best of us. More information can be found at this link: (https://www.youtube.com...). For memory in general, watch this (https://www.youtube.com...)

Because Pro did not attack the fact that relying on the memories of other human beings is essential to maintaining accurate information, this point stands.

"I have to imagine nerves sensing electrical signals, information is separation, I am one is true

do you want me to burn you? why not.."

No, I do not want you to burn me, as I am the Con side of this debate and do not support any conclusion garnered from Pro's logic. This rhetorical question actually turns in favor of Con, because if the reader has the adverse reaction Pro seems to be gunning for, it only proves the point of Con's example even more. Simply put, the point is that we must rely on trust to some extent for knowledge, and that if we don't, then we cannot trust "physical experience" either.

"physical experience is necessary, no trust involved, you are dead without your senses"

Am I even alive to begin with? I doubt that anyone reading this remembers the incident of their birth, yet we remain certain that birth is our origin. This is simply another point in favor of Con.

"now you are just entertaining, I didn't use soft language like you but I easily can.. "human beings as I know them", done"

This still doesn't address the core of the issue. The fact of the matter is that knowledge about the inherent properties of any given object can be applied to all other objects of the same kind (or, at the very least, most of them) without actually seeing each and every one of its kind.

Pro has not refuted this.

"I can at best believe what others tell me. imagination is future, and memory can only be in the past"

You can do independent research, which is knowledge that you would not have gained without the effect that the actions and memories of others had on you.

You can rely on the fact that the very nature of the scientific field allows for that multiple-memory reliability that Pro has not refuted.

One last method (although by no means is it the only one) is simple use of deductive reasoning. If I tell you that X is X, you don't have to see X to know that what I say is true; to say other wise is simply absurd.

Pro has not refuted multiple-memory-reliability, the fact that even independent verification is caused by someone making a claim in the first place, nor the real-world scientific field that relies on the unrefuted collaborative/multiple-memory argument. Con's point stands.

"so because everyone is more credible to you as a mass, shouldn't you be a Christian? just go with whatever the masses is required to believe, annnnd also its a fallacy, only personal physical experience of now is true, therefore even if everyone on earth said the same thing and you disagree... this gives them no advantage, as the definition of true is not determined by humans, but by existence"

If you'll recall, I specifically excluded theological (faith-based) claims. Instead, I relied on the very physical experience which Pro himself validates, the only key difference being that I advocate for the usage of the experience of others (especially thousands at once) instead of just a lone experience.

After all, how much of the world would we know at all if we didn't trust the claims of others? Even this debate relies on 'belief' in one side or the other, with logical reasoning as the discerning factor in the mind of the reader (which is not the same as physical experience).

"sense=physical experience=true
non sense=Imagination and memory=false and truth

you are a theist to science, and science is your god"

To this, I say, how do you know, Pro? According to you, there is no way to know the experience of others.

On a serious note, this actually highlights a point in favor of Con: Psychology. We can use psychology, language, inferences, and tone of voice to read what other peoples thoughts or intentions are (including whehter or not they are telling the truth.)

Pro continously throws cheap-shots at Con that actually further Con's own points. Add that on to the list of reasons to vote Con.

"new borns are not selfaware, as they have no memory"

Let it be known that Pro's skepticism invalidates the life of infants, and thusly justifies infanticide. Pro has conceded that voting Pro is synonymous with advocating baby-killing. This cannot be ignored.

On another note, this argument begs the question, "How do we form memories in the first place?"

If Pro is to believed (which, thankfully, they're not), then there would literally be no way to form meories in the first place. Without self-awareness, we could not seperate the world from ourselves, or have the motive/means/ability to learn.

"look I can make it real easy, did I just look at my dog, is it a fact that I just looked at my dog? actually, I don't have a dog, but am I now lying about not having a dog in which case it could be a fact? how do you know"

One, you just told me. While this seems like wordplay on the surface, the simple truth is that those who lie tend to get careles, and reveal themselves as frauds in due time. That is where reputation (which is based on the memories of others) comes in. I might not immediatly recognize a lie, but that does not mean that I can't look to the memory/thoughts/experiences of others to proveit wrong.

A well-known example is the link between Autism and Vaccines. Here's a source: https://www.health.ny.gov...

I'll quote directly from it, so that my main point can come across: "After years of investigation, former doctor Andrew Wakefield, London-based author of the highly publicized report connecting autism and vaccines, was found to have acted unethically, and his study was proven false by multiple sources. "

What this shows is that while a lie may slip through at its onset, the memories/thoughts/experiences of others can destroy the lie. If we are to rely on our own memory alone, we are subject to accidental falsehoods, as shown in the videos above

This is yet another rhetorical question whose answer is in favor of Con and turns against Pro.


"what my opinion has to do with murder is irrelevant... im talking about what is true

to me... the police force is necessary, being mechanical is necessary, for jobs, beliefs are necessary... this is you sidetracking"

I reject this accusation. I am merely following the Pro logic to its ultimate conclusion.

Pro is stating that he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion of his logic, and as most of us are bound to know, you can't accept a school of thought without accepting its ultimate conclusion. To do so is hypocritical, and throws contradiction upon contradiction to the argument.

Since Pro has not actually rebutted the argument that the Con school of thought is necessary to have these things, he has conceded it. Thus, to maintain any level of society whatsoever, we must live under Con's school of thought.

Conclusion

Pro has not cited a single source in this debate.

Pro has not used efficient organization, or even basic grammar, foresaking what might have been streamlined argumentation.

Pro's unfounded logic has been refuted, Con's arguments ignored.

Pro's argument for why knowledge from others experience is invalid also invalidates physical experience, and destroys the resolution.

Pro's rebuttals all work to further validate the notion that we must rely upon the memories of others in order to avoid the very falsehoods which Pro is afraid of in the first place.

Pro's logic goes against any good that comes from society and science, while justifying murder. Pro does not deny this. Instead, Pro merely agrees that those outcomes are bad. To do so is to conced the debate, and that's exactly what Pro has done.

From the layman to the Philosopher, this is a cut-and-dry victory for Con.

So please, Vote Con! (And watch those videos, if you get a chance. Really interesting stuff).

Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
phiLockeraptor
I was going for analytical v synetical, and the particular exception to the tide of things that is mathematics/theoretical sciences, but my stubbornoptimism had me convinced that pro was not a troll, so I tried to talk in terms that they could understand.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
anything I imagine goes to future, so even if I remember hearing a story in the past, the sound of the persons voice is knowledge, and the story is belief

future=false
now=true
past=truth
Posted by phantom 1 year ago
phantom
Oh, and Pro's spelling/grammar was atrocious.
Posted by phantom 1 year ago
phantom
RFD

Mathematics: Con argues we can count to numbers we had never memorized before. We can use mathematical knowledge to derive answers that were not previously in our memory or knowledge. I also interpret him as saying equations are synthetic and not analytical. So something additional is being added that's not found within the mere analysis of the terms of the equation.

Documentation: Con argues we can store information by writing it down, not by memorizing it.

Con says we rely on the memory of others, not just our own.

Con says our brain makes logical deductions and interpretations that are separate from memory.

Con says we have non-physical emotional experiences that give us knowledge.

Pro equates knowledge with memories of experiences and facts with past observations. He says something about truth that seems entirely incoherent to me. He says all truth is in the past and beliefs are about the future. Since relying on others is an aspect of belief, it"s an unreliable mode of knowledge.

I"m pretty sure Pro is a troll. I"m just going to move on to my conclusion without providing much further summary.

Pro"s notions of facts and knowledge are extremely counter-intuitive and require far more support and elucidation than Pro was willing to give. Con even drew on the absurd implications Pro"s arguments would have on the world. I get that Pro is saying all knowledge is derived from past experiences, but why say knowledge and facts are the same thing? Why say math is not about facts just because math has to do with the future? Pro suddenly states that knowledge is free will. What? I don"t think Pro could have given much more clarification because I don"t think Pro really knows what he"s talking about. Pro ignored most of Con"s arguments. The math argument and probably the entirety of Con"s case stands. As Con said, this was a very clear-cut victory.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
that is true not a theory thou, but i can at best believe what others tell me, so others past experiences goes out the window, as they are not knowledge, but belief

belief is the opposite of knowledge, future and past

knowledge=destruction(turn my back)
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
The theory that all knowledge is derived from past experience. I think you are arguing for empiricism, so your opponent will most likely use a rationalist-type argument.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
fact=past observation

what is empiricism??
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
...Empiricism? I don't get the resolution here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
vi_spexphiLockeraptorTied
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: I am not certain Pro even put up an argument, it looked like a string of inchohrent equivocations.
Vote Placed by phantom 1 year ago
phantom
vi_spexphiLockeraptorTied
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: RFD in comments