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

i dont know means, i know its false

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...
Fkkize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 77096
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim, the maybe, not yes and no

only know is true, and i dont know god
Fkkize

Con

Introduction
In this debate I will to argue against the resolution or to be more concise I will argue it is not the case that 'I don't know' means 'I know it's false'. Further I want to examine Pro's opening statement which is rather disconnected from the resolution.

Knowledge
Knowledge and the nature thereof has been one of the main concerns of philosophy ever since. As such I am going to use the established analysis of 'justified true belief' (1). In what follows I want to present a quick explanation for this analysis as well as demonstrate how the belief and the justification condition are relevant to this debate.

Belief:
To believe a proposition to be true is the basis of all (potential) knowledge. That is to say I can't know that "the sky is blue" is true if I don't even believe that the sky is blue.

Justification:
I might believe all sorts of things. I might belief my neighbors dog to be called Rex and many other things. Those beliefs might all be correct, maybe it is called Rex. If however my response to the question "why do you believe that?" turns out to be "Dunno" or "Believing it makes me feel go on the inside", then my belief is not justified and does therefore not constitute knowledge.

Truth:
I might believe that the moon is made of cheese and I might be justified in believing so.
Perhaps I went there and took some rocks with me. Back home, before I examined them, someone exchanged them for pieces of cheese. I have direct perceptual experience of picking up the rocks, I have memorial experience of said event, I have direct perceptual experience of the rocks tasting like cheese and therefore may be justified in believing that the moon is made of cheese. The fact that this belief is not true should be obvious.

Of course my examples are very simplistic but the spirit is clear.

'I don't know' means 'I know it's false'
Now we come to the heart of this debate. There are many reasons for me to think not to know something without affirming Pro's case. To negate the resolution, I am going to present two examples, all relating to the above listed knowledge conditions.

Belief:
Imagine I lived my life far away from any civilization. Say you approach me and ask "Do you know whether New Year's Eve is next week?". As an isolated desertman I probably have no concept of New Year's celebrations, therefore I cannot believe New Year's Eve to be next week or not. It does not at all follow that I know it's wrong, I might just think you are crazy or ask what a New Year's Eve is supposed to be. I have no doxastic attitude towards the propostion and I am not in a position to form a proper one.

Justification:
Perhaps I do understand your question, because I only lived the recent years in isolation. I might not remember at all what day it is or I might have some gutfeeling as to whether it is summer or winter, but I won't be able to tell you with certainty. The reason why I don't know the answer is because I lack any justification, I do not believe it to be false.

Therefore there are at least two possible ways to say "I don't know" without asserting to have knowledge contrary to the initial claim.

"i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim"
Simply put, no, I can answer with "I don't know" to all kinds of very real claims. To say I only imagine my daily conversations is to commit oneself to some kind of solipsism, for which my opponent has not yet argued in any way.

"only know is true"
As stated above, the truth of a belief is a necessary precondition for knowledge, not the other way around.
There is nothing that is knowledge which is also not true, but there are some things that are true without being knowledge.

"i dont know god"
That may or may not be true regardless of the existence of God, but it is also irrelevant to both the resolution and the rest of my opponent's opening statement.

Sources
(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

belief being doubt, belief that the sky is blue is doubt that the sky is blue, therfore i must believe the sky is false

i see that the sky is blue, so i would lie saying its red

belief is false, as i dont know is true, be lie

belief is the opposite of knowledge, knowledge is truth, and truth can only be in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now

truth=memory=impossible

false=imaginary=possible

probable=pro babble

know=today, not tomorrow and yesterday

i dont know=i can at best imagine it

know=physical experience
Fkkize

Con

In the following I am going to respond to each of my opponents lines seperately. Note that he did not address my opening statement in any way.

belief being doubt, belief that the sky is blue is doubt that the sky is blue, therfore i must believe the sky is false
Belief is not doubt. I can believe a proposition to be true with some minor doubts in mind. However a belief that constitutes knowledge might just be one I cannot doubt, like Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum.

i see that the sky is blue, so i would lie saying its red
If you belie the sky to be blue, then yes, saying it's red would be a lie. This does not advance my opponents postion in any way.

belief is false, as i dont know is true, be lie
Beliefs are not false ex definitione. They can be false, but they can also be true.

belief is the opposite of knowledge, knowledge is truth, and truth can only be in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now
Talking about opposites here makes little sense. Imagining a Venn-diagram might help: Everything that is knowledge is also a belief, but not everything that is a belief is also knowledge

truth=memory=impossible
Memory is not truth. Truth is a relation between truthbearers and truthmakers.
To have memory is not impossible, I am having memory of accepting this debate right now.

false=imaginary=possible
Not everything is false is also imaginary. Saying "The moon is made of cheese" is false, but moon, cheese and me having said are very real.

probable=pro babble
Not related to this debate.

know=today, not tomorrow and yesterday
'Knowledge' is a true and justified doxastic attitude, 'today' is an abstract concept, it cannot have an attitude towards anything.

i dont know=i can at best imagine it
Here my opponent contradicts the resolution he is trying to defend. "I don't know" can at best mean either "I can at best imagine it" or "I know it's false", not both.

know=physical experience
Physical experienceis not knowledge per se. I can have physical experience of a red sky, but that would be a hallucination and therefore not knowledge.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

i wrote it wrong, if i doubt the sky is blue, i believe the sky is not blue

knowledge is the opposite of belief, truth is the opposite of false

arguing honestly for what i dont know is true means i am lying to myself

i see the sky is blue, no belief involved, i dont have to imagine it

can be true isnt true, you reading these words is happening not can happen

i know my experience of now therfore i am

belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true=imaginary=false

knowledge=memory=truth

any false answer is imaginary, false dosnt exist in reality

knowledge is truth

only now is true, now=today

kNow=now

i dont know means, i can at best imagine it. i know god is false because i have to imagine it, i see that i dont see god, i know that i dont know god, i know god is false

know=physical experience=true

know is the opposite of knowledge and belief, and knowledge is the opposite of belief
Fkkize

Con

I the following I have grouped my opponents statements whenever they seemed to be similar or contradictory.

-i doubt the sky is blue, i believe the sky is not blue

-arguing honestly for what i dont know is true means i am lying to myself
These have nothing to do with the resolution.

-i know god is false because i have to imagine it, i see that i dont see god, i know that i dont know god, i know god is false
This conflating of concepts was addressed in my opening statement.

-i see the sky is blue, no belief involved, i dont have to imagine it
If have the thought "the sky is blue" in your mind then it is per definition a belief.

-can be true isnt true, you reading these words is happening not can happen
If something is possibly true, then it is just that, possibly true. It does not at all follow that it is false.

-i know my experience of now therfore i am
Probably yes. Irrelevant to the resolution.

-knowledge is the opposite of belief, truth is the opposite of false
-knowledge=memory=truth
-know=physical experience=true
-knowledge is truth
-kNow=now
-know is the opposite of knowledge and belief, and knowledge is the opposite of belief
-belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true=imaginary=false
Identity, '=', is transitive. Therefore, if knowledge = memory and knowledge = the current moment, then memory = the current moment. That is nonsensical as one can only have memory of past moments. 'True = false' is simply a meaningless proposition.

-any false answer is imaginary, false dosnt exist in reality
If I answer the question "2+2=?" with "7" then yes, my answer is false, but my opponent does not establish what is imaginary about my answer. 'False' does probably not exist as some platonic form, but false answers do exist definitely.

-only now is true, now=today
Not the case. Eternalism is the superior ontology of time, every time is true.

-i dont know means, i can at best imagine it.
I have responded to this in the last round. This is contradictory to the resolution my opponent is trying to affirm.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

possbilities are imaginary

belief is doubt

know is matter, not a concept

knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, now is matter

2+2=4 know, physical, true,

2 rocks in my hand + 2 more rocks in my hand = 4 rocks, i have to imagine a fifth

now=reality loop 1 second or less

begin to count, like 1.... 1..... 1..... and every time you say 1 you will experience a true second

i see that i dont see god, is true, i know god is imaginary, false, i have to imagine it=i dont know
Fkkize

Con

-possbilities are imaginary
-belief is doubt
-know is matter, not a concept
-knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, now is matter
None of this advances my opponents position in affirming the resolution

2+2=4 know, physical, true,
2 rocks in my hand + 2 more rocks in my hand = 4 rocks, i have to imagine a fifth
I am not sure what there is physical about 2+2=4 in Pro's upper line. 2+2 is a thought.

now=reality loop 1 second or less
If reality looped like this we would never reach the next day, we would not even exist.

begin to count, like 1.... 1..... 1..... and every time you say 1 you will experience a true second
I can count faster or slower, but I probably never counted an exact second in my life.

i see that i dont see god, is true, i know god is imaginary, false, i have to imagine it=i dont know
From the very beginning I found it to be puzzling as to what God has to do with this. Whether or not God is imaginary has nothing to do with the meaning of 'I don't know'.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

1=something
you cant have something in your hand that is 0
changes can happen in a loop
i am still sure that i experience 1 true second every time i say 1 as i count
i dont know=i have to imagine it

imagination=false
i dont know is a position i know, as i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not
Fkkize

Con


changes can happen in a loop
Of course, but if it takes less than one second for the loop to complete then the earth would have never formed.


i am still sure that i experience 1 true second every time i say 1 as i count
Of course you experience a true second, but this experience does not map onto the 1's you say.


i dont know=i have to imagine it
This is contradictory to the resolution my opponent is trying to affirm.

imagination=false
Imagination is not necessarily false. I can imagine myself sitting in front of a computer whilst actually sittinging in front of a computer in reality.


i dont know is a position i know, as i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not
If you are certain about the absence of a dog, then it makes senseto say "I know it's false" not "I don't know". If you didn't know you would not be certain.

My arguments have not been addressed. I rest my case.
Jaden, pls.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
existence is in contrast with experience, so true existence is my physical experience
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
No.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
existence is defined by experience
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
vi_spex, a debate doesnt define truth, however there is still a winner, and a loser. You lose, you dont debate you rant.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
therfore i must believe the sky is not blue*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, so for me to say i see a dog in my room right now is false
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
You realllllly want me to own you in a debate again, huh?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
tell me the difference
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Lol...omg.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
and you won becasue all the people reading this will think you won.. clearly
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
n7
vi_spexFkkizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 defines all the relevant terms and gives an examples where someone doesn't know something, but isn't known false. Pro doesn't attack any example, but went on about how he would lie about the sky being blue. Along with incoherently defining terms. He seems very trollish like defining probable as "pro babble". Con demonstrated that Pro's statements are nonsensical, like "belief is doubt" and "belief is false". He points out the definitions make no sense. Pro, ignores everything in the previous round to reassert definitions and present new ones. This goes on till the end of the debate. All Pro does is incoherently make new definitions without defending the previous arguments. Con's example was never attacked. Arguments to Con S&G to Con, since Pro never capitalized anything and never used paragraphs. He just kept one lining everything. Pro never used proper punctuation either.