Can we know anything to be 100% True?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Round 1: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Round 1 Statements
Round 3: Rebuttals of Round 2 Statements.
Round 4: Interrogation. Questions Only about any part of the topic.
Round 5: Answering Round 4 Questions and then closing statements.
Con must accept this format in order to debate this topic.
“So I think the best definition of absolute knowledge is "to know such that we cannot be wrong"This will be my goalpost for this debate.”-Pro, round 1
Argument 1 - This is both a valid argument and the conclusion is believable:P1: No cigarettes are inexpensive.P2: Some addictive things are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some addictive things are not inexpensive.Argument 2 – Valid & unbelievable:P1: No addictive things are inexpensive.P2: Some cigarettes are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictive.Argument 3 – Invalid & believable:P1: No addictive things are inexpensive.P2: Some cigarettes are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some addictive things are not cigarettes.Argument 4 – Invalid & unbelievable:P1: No cigarettes are inexpensive.P2: Some addictive things are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictive
P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983).
This does seem like a reasonable standard to me considering the debate resolution. So, Pro will try to provide at least one example of knowledge that is impossible to doubt as it necessarily can not be false. I, on the other hand, am going to disprove any such examples and will win unless at least one example stands by the end of the debate.
All knowledge is either a posteriori (derived through the senses; observation of the natural world; empirical evidence) or a priori (deduced independent of experience, such as mathematics (2+1=3), tautologies (“All bachelors are unmarried”) and deduction from pure reason [1].100% = complete, entire, whole [2]
Human reasoning can be mistaken:Research by Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) has shown that human deduction is regularly erroneous and easily falls prey to biases.They presented participants with logical syllogisms such as:Argument 1 - This is both a valid argument and the conclusion is believable:P1: No cigarettes are inexpensive.P2: Some addictive things are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some addictive things are not inexpensive.Argument 2 – Valid & unbelievable:P1: No addictive things are inexpensive.P2: Some cigarettes are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictive.Argument 3 – Invalid & believable:P1: No addictive things are inexpensive.P2: Some cigarettes are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some addictive things are not cigarettes.Argument 4 – Invalid & unbelievable:P1: No cigarettes are inexpensive.P2: Some addictive things are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictiveParticipants were presented several arguments that followed the same structures as the four examples and found that participants accepted the conclusions as valid of 92% of the valid & believable arguments but less than half (46%) of the valid but unbelievable arguments. Even more staggeringly, participants accepted 92% of the invalid but believable conclusions as valid but did a good job of rejecting the invalid & unbelievable conclusions (8%). This shows that human deduction is at least some times (not none times) mistaken and can, therefore, be doubted and hence can not be known to be 100% true.
In conclusion, because all human knowledge is derived through reasoning and human reasoning is at least some times (= not none times) wrong, it can be doubted and as therefore everything can be doubted, it follows that nothing can be known to be 100% true.P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true (from Pro's definition of knowledge).
P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983).C1: Everything that is based on human reasoning can not be known to be 100% true.P3: All human knowledge is based on logical reasoning (otherwise it would be irrational and unjustified and thus a belief, rather than knowledge).P4: The debate resolution only refers to knowledge that can be attained by humans (the "we" in the debate resolutions implies humanity).C2: Therefore, nothing can be known to be 100% true by humans.
“A = Bachelor B = Man C = Unmarried. Now for putting it unto reality. A man is self evident so I can place my tautology around him because he fits the definition of reality, but this is just a simple identity. Unmarried also fits as a perfect tautology, but still we're not quite in the physical. But once we put it together into B and C = A Now we have it. Are true metaphysical truth. The man (identity) is unmarried (by virtue of the physics of not being "married" by someone) and this is logically equivalent to a Bachelor.”- Pro, Round 1
Pro claims that “a man is self-evident” and thus must be using the informal definition of self-evidence “obvious”[1] as, while the existence of men is indeed obvious, it is not logically necessary that something like a man exists in reality.
"The present King of France is bald."
“(a) There exists something that is the present king of France.(b) There is only one thing that is the present king of France.(c) Anything that is the present king of France is bald.” [2]
While it is unlikely, it is nonetheless possible that we are wrong about what we think something means actually means. Harvard Cognitive Psychologist and language development expert Steven Pinker in his book “The Sense of Style”, for example, outlined several examples:
Begs the question:
Actual meaning: When an argument’s premise assumes the truth of the conclusion.Commonly mistake: Raising the question/avoiding the question.Dichotomy:Actual meaning: Two mutually exclusive alternatives.Commonly mistake: Difference or discrepancy between two alternatives.Disinterested:
Actual meaning: Unbiased.Common mistake: Uninterested.[4]
“P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true (from Pro's definition of knowledge).P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983).C1: Everything that is based on human reasoning can not be known to be 100% true.P3: All human knowledge is based on logical reasoning (otherwise it would be irrational and unjustified and thus a belief, rather than knowledge).P4: The debate resolution only refers to knowledge that can be attained by humans (the "we" in the debate resolutions implies humanity).C2: Therefore, nothing can be known to be 100% true by humans.”
P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983 & self-evidence).
P3: Pro’s example is based on human reasoning.
C: Pro’s example can not be known to be 100% true.
"The present King of France is bald."
Has Pro established that the existence of an unmarried man can not be doubted (i.e. is self-evident in the formal sense; does not require proof to be known to be true 100%)? No, he has not.
While it is unlikely, it is nonetheless possible that we are wrong about what we think something means actually means. Harvard Cognitive Psychologist and language development expert Steven Pinker in his book “The Sense of Style”, for example, outlined several examples
While it is true that in everyday life people trust that they know what they’re saying and that it is correct, we are at least some times mistaken about what we believe the things we “know the meaning of” actually mean.
Mental disorders (e.g. about 1% of the population is affected by schizophrenia), memory loss, hallucinations, and even simple mistakes occur on a regular basis.
P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true (from Pro's definition of knowledge).
P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983 & self-evidence).
P3: Pro’s example is based on human reasoning.
C: Pro’s example can not be known to be 100% true.
“So now we have a priori and a posteriori proof of 2 + 2 = 4. This counts as a complete induction and therefore is true so that we cannot be wrong.”“Let's say we take two apples and two more apples and count them to make sure and then put them together and count them again. Each and every time this happens, we will get 4 apples without fail. This means it's impossible to be wrong.”
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs […]” - George Orwell
- Finally, from my opening argument:P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true (from Pro's definition of knowledge).P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken (from Evans, Barston and Pollard, 1983 & self-evidence).P3: To know that 2+2=4 relies on human reasoning.C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100%.
Con makes 5 brief criticisms of my opening argument which will all be refuted:
Argument 3 – Invalid & believable:P1: No addictive things are inexpensive.P2: Some cigarettes are inexpensive.C: Therefore, some addictive things are not cigarettes.
“First, the point he makes is that people on average believe certain syllogisms when they shouldn't. This doesn't prove that logic is wrong, but that people are wrong.”
“Second, the unsound syllogisms do not claim to be logical and that is why they're unsound, they commit non sequiturs and commit what are called formal fallacies. I will leave a link about categorical syllogisms because that is what he is using.”“Third, These forms of syllogisms are outdated and most people currently use propositional logic. This is the key thing that makes it a strawman. People only use these types of syllogisms for simple and intuitive proofs because it's so easy to fall into non sequiturs as the study has shown.”
“Fourth, the study is from the 80's and based on a survey, It has nothing to do with logic and ultimately is just a non sequitur to this argument in general. “
The argument (for context):“P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true.P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken.P3: All human knowledge is based on reasoning (otherwise it’d be irrational and thus not justified).C1: Humans can not know anything to be 100% true.”
“I don’t think you could get up to 99.99% confidence for assertions like ‘53 is a prime number’. Yes, it seems likely, but by the time you tried to set up protocols that would let you assert 10,000 independent statements of this sort – that is, not just a set of statements about prime numbers, but a new protocol each time – you would fail more than once. Peter de Blanc has an amusing anecdote” (check the link for the anecdote). [1]
1. Do you think there would be any relevant implications to being 99.99999999999999% certain that something is true, rather than 100%?
2. Do you believe that all studies that are more than thirty years old and based on surveys should be treated as inconclusive?
3. Would you agree that my argument can also be presented as:The argument (for context):“P1: Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken can not be known to be 100% true.P2: Human reasoning can be mistaken.P3: All human knowledge is based on reasoning (otherwise it’d be irrational and thus not justified).C1: Humans can not know anything to be 100% true.”A = Everything that is based on foundations that can be mistaken., B = Can not be known to be 100% true., C = Human reasoning., D = Human knowledgeP1: A is B.P2: C is (part of) A.P3: D is (based on) C.C: D is B.
4. How certain are you that 51 is a prime number?“I don’t think you could get up to 99.99% confidence for assertions like ‘53 is a prime number’. Yes, it seems likely, but by the time you tried to set up protocols that would let you assert 10,000 independent statements of this sort – that is, not just a set of statements about prime numbers, but a new protocol each time – you would fail more than once. Peter de Blanc has an amusing anecdote” (check the link for the anecdote). [1]
5. Regarding your recent debate about the existence of God, are you 100% certain that God does not exist?
6. Regarding your other recent debate about objective morality where you wrote: “Some people might make a false moral code (like in a holy book, for instance) and they could "claim" it's morality, but it's not.”, are you 100% certain that Biblical moral codes are false?
7. Do you think you can be 100% certain that your memories are correct?
8. Do you accept the Bayesian interpretation of probability, which treats knowledge as a subjective belief, where the possibility of errors (flawed memories, simulation hypothesis, flying spaghetti monster messing with you, etc.) has to be taken into account? [4]
Closing Statement
1. Do you find your reasoning to be sound? (you personally)
2. Do you think we could survive our reality without knowing at least some things 100%?
3. Do you think there is such a thing as an unhealthy level of skepticism? If so, what standards should we use to determine where the line is?
4. Are there times that agnosticism to a certain position can be unjustified?
5. If there are only two options and one option is impossible, would you agree that the remaining option is 100% true?
6. What would it take to convince you that something was 100% true?
7. Assuming that something COULD be 100% true. (only hypothetically, this is NOT a concession on your part.) What would be the proper standards to determine this and why do you think this is the best standard?
8. Do you think an opinion can be true of itself? (i.e. it's 100% true that my favorite color is blue)
9. Do you believe in hypothetical truths? (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 hypothetically is true)
10. Assuming that hypothetical truths were valid (NOT a concession on your part), do you think we could match this truth to reality? If so, would that make it true and why? If not then why can't we match it and what does this imply?
I believe I have successfully argued that 100% certainty about human knowledge is not possible due to human fallibility (proneness to biases, deduction errors, memory failures, etc.) and that the Bayesian interpretation of probability treats human knowledge as subjective based on the possibility (even if it is extremely low in some instances) of mistakes. Furthermore, my opponent has conceded both P1 and P2 of my argument, P3 is self-evident and even if one argued that “observation & education” are not instances of reasoning (although I believe they are at the very least implicit reasoning as if one asked a person “Why do you know this to be true?” they would respond with reasons which imply that they knew it follows from these which points to reasoning again), they are also instances of fallible foundations of knowledge. As the argument is a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows:
My congratulations to both sides for a well-contested, well-pondered, well-written debate.
Epistemology gets so abstract so quickly that this voter leans hard on good examples to better understand principles. I wanted three good examples of indisputable truths and Pro only gave us one entirely unsuitable example in the first round:
B+C=A
man + unmarried = bachelor
Of course, divorcees and widowers are unmarried but not bachelors. This single example is so awkwardly, manifestly so often not true that it weakens Pro's authority going forward and Con's case by responding to it.
This voter far preferred Con's reframing "Pro will try to provide at least one example of knowledge that is impossible to doubt as it necessarily can not be false. I, on the other hand, am going to disprove any such examples and will win unless at least one example stands by the end of the debate." Pro agrees and I'm glad because these are rules I can parse with my feeble little brain.
Con offered one solid example of the imperfection of human reason. The first syllogism of Con's conclusion seems adequate, the second syllogism is both weaker and redundant. Not all human knowledge is based on reason (experience is often knowledge without reason, intuition is definitionally knowledge without reason, know-how vs. know-to, etc) and Pro's P3 also curiously separates knowledge from belief... isn't all knowledge a subset of belief? Is there really something we might know to be true that we don't also conditionally believe to be true? Isn't the distortion of belief the primary cause for the human fallibility on which Con's case depends?
Pro improves his prospects by upgrading his tautological example to 2+2=4. A marked improvement. Con falls back on Descartes- is 2+2=4 verifiably true beyond human perception? No, all human knowledge is filtered through human perceptions and subject to human distortion.
Pro's questions were pretty philosophical and didn't offer much that might shake Con's conclusion.
Con's questions aptly elicited examples of human fallibility- misunderstanding the joke of 51, Pro's 100% certainty of god's non-existence vs the human majority's faith in god. I frown on Con's citation of Pro's arguments from other debates- I don't think it harmed any argument here but we should refrain from dangerous precedents.
Going by Con's frame (one indubitable example), 2+2=4 was Pro's best shot. But even 2+2=4 is not provable beyond the range of fallible human sense, which Con has aptly demonstrated.
Arguments to Con but both debaters should take satisfaction in the quality of argument here.
My reading of this resolution boils down to tautology.
IE: that you can define things or use mathematic proofs to make a logically true statement. I don’t see much of a difference between the two points.
Con rebuttal was ok - in that it very much rules out knowing anything about the universe or outside our own experiences for true - by arguing that humans reasoning is inherently faulty - but it completely misses the logically tautological.
Pros rebuttal here points out the issue with cons human reasoning argument - that it’s very specific to the individuals. That one human could make faulty logic but doesn’t mean others are wrong - but it doesn’t introduce a very interesting question:
How do you know that your view of a price of knowledge being 100% is true or not - if we know we have faulty reasoning?
I feel pro actually misses this point in his rebuttal.
In cons second round. He hits this home harder - how do we know our certainty isn’t due to mental disorder or faulty logic (like scizophrenia)?
Redundantly - he attempts to question the nature of statements of existence: we may know a fact is true - but given that truth is predicated on existence, if that is not certain, the inherent truth is not certain either. I don’t think this was a particularly strong case. It seems too specific - ie i don’t know how it applies to a wider set of examples.
Pro continues by pointing out the logical issue with the king of France examples, and explains why tautologies don’t suffer from this same issue.
There’s more back and forward on this part as the debate progresses, but imo is really overshadowed by the two real issues that spill out.
The questions, I read : but don’t seem particularly useful or elaborative.
So: basically, the entire argument boils down to whether we can be certain of what is in our own brains. I believe con introduced an amazing doubt - which I was not expecting him to - about whether what we, personally perceive is True or not. I agree that a tautology may not be truly tautology, I could just be mentally ill and think it is. No matter how unlikely, the chance is not 0% - so this point goes to con.
I could have covered most of the arguments in more depth, but for this point - it uniquely undermines every logical point pro raised: if I cannot be 100% certain that I am not insane and everything is an illusion of my own irrationality, repeatable though it may be - I cannot be certain of anything.
As a result: arguments to con. All other points tied.
You guys write so much that it’s so hard to vote on it, haha, but here I go
Arguments
I found nothing wrong with either of the opening statements, so I am focusing on each of the rebuttals and rejoinders. I am ignoring the interrogation questions because they didn’t really pertain to the debate and I have a life I need to get back to.
Ok, so Pro hinged a lot of his arguments on tautologies, mathematics, and things that are objectively true. His main one was that a bachelor is unmarried. Con’s main rebuttals to this was that we cannot always know everything to be 100% because human reasoning is flawed, and also that reality itself could be flawed. The former was completely rebutted when Pro said “Ahh, but you said SOMETIMES we're mistaken. This implies that sometimes we're not. I only have to know one thing to break into the rest of reality.” He only needed to prove at least 1 thing to be 100% true, so he invalidated the flawed knowledge argument with this statement.
The latter rebuttal from Con would have proved sufficient if the argument depended on reality being reliable. However, this position was never established by either side. Because everyone of that, Pro was able to fall back on simply the definitions and terms “man” and “unmarried” being true, and “bachelor” being logically equivalent to “unmarried.”
The only other contention was that we can’t know mathematics to be 100% true. However, Pro’s main truth (that a bachelor is an unmarried man) did not rely on mathematics at all, but rather just logical equivalency.
The rest of the debate descended into a lot of unnecessary rambling about the exact same subjects.
I’m awarding arguments to Pro because he did a spectacular job of defending his points.
Sources
I’m giving Con sources because he was able to show real world examples of the concepts he was explaining, such as the king of France is bald one and the survey that showed human reasoning is flawed. They really helped to further his points and show how we’ve done some of the things that he mentioned in real life.
Good job to both debaters. :)
*Tied In All Other Categories*
yes to debating soon, tho I don't like my chances. I'm thinking about "Hannibal lost Carthage at Cannae," "Humanity should colonize the Moon before Mars," maybe another autonomous vehicle debate with a narrower focus. What's yer chew?
Cheers Oromagi, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5 in no time, looking forward to debating you some time soon and I hope you're not beating me too badly in the voting competition ;)
Congrats, PB, on top 5 silver
I'd also appreciate a vote from you
You've given me helpful feedback in the past on DDO, I'd really appreciate a vote from you on this one.
First vote :D
I'm watching a youtube series on skepticism so I'm feeling the depth of this debate right now, lol
I agree, I believe we went through the important points on both sides of the debate
good debate
I like the questions. This should be fun. :)
I meant to say "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100% true." in round 2, not "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100%."
Round 2 Sources::
[1]: page, M., & Exa..., 1. (2018). 1 and .999 repeating are the same quantity. Exactly equal.. DebateArt.com. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.debateart.com/debates/130
[2]: The Existential Risk of Math Errors - Gwern.net. (2019). Gwern.net. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.gwern.net/The-Existential-Risk-of-Mathematical-Error
[3]: (2019). Mentalmodels.princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2010mms%26human-reasoning.pdf
What does votes have to do with the validity of knowledge? isn't that just subjective?
Because Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) shows why votes on debates are often incomprehensibly irrational (as people's biases - whether they agree with the conclusion - has a highly signficant effect on whether arguments are accepted/considered valid). You seem like you'd be interested in finding out more about people's decision-making process while voting on your debates.
The User PsychometricBrain ("I") has the impression ("feel like") that the user RationalMadman ("you") would find PB's opening argument enjoyable (would dig my round 1)...
???????
I feel like you'd dig my round 1, especially since Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) can account for many of the "funny" votes on DDO/DISL/DART.
The one thing would have to be true and apply to reality at the same time.
So I can't say A is this because I defined it that way and then say it's true simply because I defined it.
I lost you after “cool” lol
You read and agree to the terms in the description correct?
I'll hit you with this topic after this one's settled if that's cool.
I would say yes, proving one thing wins it for me but it has to be something non arbitrary because can you really call a name true in the epistemological sense? maybe a priori, but generally the concept of truth doesn't become contentious until you add the physical element and I would argue that logic is meant to apply to the physical so I would have to show that the truth applies to the world. At least that's how I see it.
Will you separately challenge me to this?
Lol yeah
I feel your pain, I thought Ralph was actually Con and was disappointed that I couldn't take the Con position. Turns out I was wrong though, lucky for me :)
Aw man, I really wanted to try this haha
If you proved even one thing to be 100%, would you automatically win?
Pro merely has to prove 1 thing to be true in order for him to win.
My bad, I meant "Pro", not "Con".
Showing nothing can be shown to be 100% true means that the statement that you can’t show anything to be 100% true is 100% true.
Pro can win by running Solipsism.
The only way I can see a Con winning this resolution is through a kritik.