Rationalism (pro) vs Empiricism (con)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals / Opening Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing
Empiricism: Sense Experience is the only way to attain knowledge and determine if claims are true. All knowledge comes from the senses.
Rationalism: All Knowledge primarily comes from Reason rather than sense experience.
Sources, grammar and conduct excellent for both parties: this was an EXCELLENT debate, and both should be commended.
Arguments. I’m going to go through each argument thread in turn here, in no particular order (and a summary of my interpretation of what was said)
1.) pro: Self defeating empiricism. Massively summarized, pro argues that empiricism fails as it can’t prove itself to be true: I felt cons rebuttal here - that this is effectively true of all epistemological models so isn’t a reason to discount successfully rebutted pro, and as such this contention fails. 1-0 Con.
2.) pro: Empiricism assumes that what we see is real, and out sense is accurate and it may not be. (Massive summarization). Here Con points out (with the brain example), that this is really a semantic argument: that such a reality would be objectively real - but not in the way we necessarily think. In addition, pointing out multiple observations helps bolster the case by explaining that it’s based on one person - who could be hallucinating - but many - would would all have to having the same hallucination. Much of this portion of argument became far too semantic in places, but I felt con had the edge here too. 2-0
3.) pro: rationalism as a framework. Pro starts off with I think therefore I am, but seems to mix this up with “I think therefore I am rational”, pro needs to be establishing the practical reliability, but I found this link tenuous at best. When reading the something from nothing part jumped off the page for the same reason, I felt pro simply says something cannot come from nothing - by defining it as such. Con points out the same flaws with rationalism as pro pointed out. Con foundered in this argument, up until his closing argument - I had on pegged for a loss on this one until he clarified that rationalism requires an external reality for its truths to be measured in order to be determined as valid or not. For me this thrust wins this aspect for me - but con should probably have raised this right at the start. 3-0 Con
4.) The benefit of empiricism. Cons argument here, is basically that empiricism allows you to check whether your claims are correct against some external reality. I felt this was a good summarization of the benefits, and felt pro didn’t fully address the crux here.
Importantly, while I get cons arguments were better, as I am genuinely on the fence between Rationaism and Empiricism i. Terms of which is better/more useful (the question maybe like asking whether drink is more important than food), neither side landed a knock out blow, and there wasn’t much that swayed me either way and thus I remain on the fence.
Great debate though, well done both.
RFD IN COMMENTS
Stalk?
Stalk away. Knock yourself out.
I can prove it to you if you want.
Nope.
You have totally and utterly misportrayed, misunderstood and muddied the waters of Pro's argument in your entire RFD.
PART 1 OF RFD
Both debaters used Round 5 for rebuttals so even though both agreed on Round 5 being closing statements without rebuttals, I am inclined to note that Round 5 wasn't pure-closing it was further defence including attacking points that the previous debater had just brought up from both parties. If 2 parties break a deal in the same way I am a person (and judge here) that will consider both consequentially valid in doing so. I have the exact same mentality with mutually ensured nuclear bombing as a means of maintaining world peace regardless of the legality of who has which bomb.
This mentality to me is perfectly justifiable and I will not at all be disregarding what was said in Round 5 despite the agreed structure.
Let's cut a long story short: I'm biased on this, I consider Pro to be speaking from a stance of absolute truth but one thing I didn't like is how Solipsist they were but I admit that most on my side are more subjectivists than objectivists. Reality to me is undeniably objective and thus there has to be a God at the core of it since a 'thing' can't be 'nothingness' and thus atheist reality at its core is self-defeated. Why am I saying this? Because I want to make it clear that to me Con is on the side that cannot at all be won, thus I admit I am fighting against bias but am going to be calmly explaining why Con lost and Pro won throughout this RFD.
PART 2 OF RFD
I loved the first point that Pro brings up, really I loved it a lot. This argument was the strongest, most brutal stab at Con and it came first. Fantastic performance:
"The problem that rationalists have pointed out is that the claim that “all knowledge comes from the senses” is not itself knowledge that comes from the senses. There is simply no experiment or place where we can observe such a claim."
In order to reconcile this contradiction, Con basically says that Empiricism is not a known fact or truth, it's an opinion that he holds likely to be true... As in the very basis of how to know things is just an opinion that you are free to doubt. Well... Okay then? So Con concedes that his side isn't truth or known in any factual manner. This was not his fault, Con is on an unwinnable side that many brainwashed physicists have become trapped into believing as well as many shallow thinkers in philosophy such as Aristotle. I won't go into it now as that's my own arguments but believe me, Con couldn't win this debate unless Pro was lazy or an idiot and Pro was neither.
PART 3 OF RFD
Pro absolutely correctly responds with:
"Now, I have argued that empiricism itself cannot be justified using empiricism and con’s response is that empiricism itself is an unprovable axiom that lacks any justification. Con here makes the key concession that there is no evidence for empiricism since it lacks any justification and thus can only be accepted through blind dogmatic faith."
But the way he spoke after that begins to lead to my Conduct vote being against him but wasn't rude enough to be that. I don't mind arrogance, I'm a blissfully impressive narcissist myself but there comes a limit where you must understand that your opponent has no less right to feel arrogant than you yourself do. They are deluded in their arrogance, yes, but even though they are inferior it doesn't mean you have the right to make them feel that way. Debating is not just a sport, it's a battle of the finest most intellectually stimulating order. You are not entitled to just go ahead and tell your opponent that “ Con’s methodology is of course terrible,”... You do not need to use the word ‘terrible’ in place of irrational or something similar. Negativity and inferiority are not the same thing as inconsistency in reasoning.
PART FINAL OF RFD
The entirety of Con’s case rests on the fallacious notion that since we use senses to analyse the reality around us that the way we conclude said observations are valid and theories about links between said observations are true is the senses and the physicality of what’s known itself but this is not true and Pro again and again disproves Con on this while upholding the truism that we must reason first and last and senses are a middle-man (which Con doesn’t realise he’s agreeing to the whole time such as here:
“The axioms are chosen based on personal choice, as are any given rule of inference. Thus all subsequent theorems within that logical framework are a result of that choice and that choice alone. “
Whether Con realised it or not, the entire debate was actively forfeited at that point by Con and since I can’t say my own piece I’ll let Pro speak for me to prove my vote here is correct:
“Con has not only failed to address this argument but almost seems unaware of their existence which would explain why he keeps repeating that the axioms of rationalism are held on the basis of personal choice. The justification for each claim, under rationalism, would be the rational argumentation given for the claim, which would eventually trace down to more fundamental axioms.”
This entire ‘objectivity of truth’ section is the only necessary path to win or lose the debate. The rest was fluff and unless a moderator can prove to me otherwise I will leave it at that. I guarantee you I have read the entire debate and thought about this deeply and in an unbiased manner.
Meh, I forgot round 5 was the closing argument. The structure of this debate was confusing.
"Con should have waited to engage with the arguments given for my two axioms in his rebuttals rather than declare that I arbitrarily made them up."
I wasn't making a comment about your specific arguments because I was under the impression that I was only making an opening argument, not rebuttals. My statement was about rationalism in general, not about your specific arguments.
It's just opening arguments now.
Do I just do opening argument, or rebuttals as well?
I'm not sure how empiricism can win. My username hints at my bias. We know nothing, we can only make sense of our assumed truths.