The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ockham
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

knowledge=memory of nature

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 216 times Debate No: 91353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Ockham

Con

I take it that Pro is putting forward a definition of knowledge. Considered as such a definition, "memory of nature" is woefully insufficient. For example, I know that I am looking at a computer right now. This isn't a memory of nature, it's a perception of nature.

And what about scientific knowledge, or mathematical knowledge? Those qualify as understandings of nature, not memories of nature. With scientific knowledge, I can predict things about nature that I've never seen happen before, so scientific knowledge can't just be memory of nature. You can't remember something that hasn't happened yet.

Overall, knowledge can't just be "memory of nature."
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

ever block
Ockham

Con

"Ever block" isn't an argument, it's two words. You might as well just not have written anything.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

all memory you have where nature is involved, is knowledge

truth can only be in the past, predictions are unknown
Ockham

Con

You just posted two sentences, so all I can do is respond to those.

Your first sentence says, "all memory you have where nature is involved, is knowledge." This is false. There are plenty of false memories, as is demonstrated by everyday experience and numerous scientific experiments. Three out of four false convictions result from eyewitness identifications on the stand.

Here is a source about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony:

"Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States, accounting for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined.1 Since 1989, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate nearly 200 individuals who were wrongfully convicted. Of those, approximately 75 percent were convicted on evidence that included inaccurate and faulty eyewitness identifications. In some cases, these innocent individuals were misidentified by more than one eyewitness."
http://web.williams.edu...

Further, even if you were right about this, it isn't sufficient to demonstrate that knowledge is identical to memory of nature, which was the resolution being debated. It would only demonstrate that all memories of nature are knowledge, not that all knowledge consists of memories of nature. There could still be other types of knowledge, like direct perception (a case you have not addressed) and prediction.

Your second sentence says "truth can only be in the past, predictions are unknown." This is also false. If I hold a brick above the ground, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that it will fall if I drop it. That's not only common sense, it's attested to by all of physics. Predictions are capable of being known beyond a reasonable doubt, if they are based on a proven and tested scientific theory.

In conclusion, I think I have rebutted all of my opponent's claims, and used reputable sources in doing so. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i redo this one..
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
knowledge=truth
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
oh i see what your saying now, my bad
No votes have been placed for this debate.