The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ProNoob
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

no one can know/prove anything 100%

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ProNoob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 30093
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

induced

Pro

for the purposes of this debate, i am defining proof/knowledge as "100% conclusive validation of a claim"

i argue that no one can know for certain whether or not an alleged "proof" of theirs is valid because there is a potential for their own human error.

secondly, an alleged proof must pass certain criteria to be confirmed as a valid and 100% conclusive proof. but how can we know that these criteria cant potentially yield a falsehood? the only way to prove otherwise would be an exercise in circular reasoning, as you would be using those unconfirmed criteria to try to validate itself.

this is a 1 round debate. i can't prove that proving things is impossible, as that would contradict myself but i believe i have made a strong case that i accept as 99% conclusive
ProNoob

Con

If one can only know that "no one can know/prove anything 100%" to a 99.99% certainty then this definitely leave a 0.001% uncertainty meaning that they accept that there is a 0.001% chance of it being possible that someone could know/prove somethign certain. If there is even a 0.001% chance that this could happen there is now no validity behind the statement "no-one can".

Let me explain the dilemna.


This statement creates a paradox from which there is no escape.

  1. If one can know for certain that no one can prove anything 100%, they therefore are the contradiction to their own statement.
  2. If one can't know for certain that no one can prove anything 100% they inherently accept that someone can and thus, no matter how small certainty there is of this possibility, it is definitely false to assert no one can.


No one: no person; not a single person.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Primsun 4 years ago
Primsun
Seeing how pros point is circular and unproveable, the only way to approach this and allow for logic that will eventually disprove itself is to show that if we can know, than we cant know.

Here is my approach, simple questions.

Can we make a mistake?
Yes
How do you know you aren't making a mistake right now?

As I see this, unless you can prove we cant make a mistake or am not making a mistake at some point there is always a possibility of error.

In science for example, we recognize this through the simple usage of error ranges on all measured numbers.

Another way to look at this is the question: Where does knowledge come from?
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Wiploc, what about Con's main rebuttal which Pro completely missed -- it sort of rendered Pro's argument invalid.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
inducedProNoobTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Any time absolute words like "NO ONE" are in a resolution, the debate almost invariably sides with the opposing party. Any time the word "CAN" is inside a resolution, the debate almost invariably sides with the party making the argument. This debate had two gigantic sails for CON, and CON used them adequately to destroy PRO's case.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
inducedProNoobTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with Pro, but he did make an argument, met his burden of proof. Con's response, paraphrased: "If there's a tiny chance that someone can prove something, then someone can definitely prove something," is nonsensical. There is a weakness in Pro's argument, but Con didn't find it.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
inducedProNoobTied
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 brings up a point that I've had myself....it's quite the conundrum. Con gets argument points because he brings up a valid point that Pro failed to address. Con also gets spelling and grammar, because Pro made a lot of mistakes and was hard to follow.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
inducedProNoobTied
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: A one-round debate is rather pointless in my opinion. Perhaps Pro would have been able to try to refute the seemingly irrefutable proof provided by Con, had he made this a three or more round debate (with the common format of acceptance, argument, and rebuttal/closing). As it stands, he provides a weak argument which is not really backed up well, which Con demolished with the paradox proof.