Science is not the ultimate methodology which can be used to discern the truth.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
he scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]
“the property of being in accord with fact or reality”
“It cannot answer the question of "what" things are, but only how they appear to work.It also cannot discern what is real, and what merely appears to be real because it relies on observation and abstract mathematical formulas to reach it's conclusions.”
- Science can discern any truth that is objectively determinable through comparison to reality.
- Any truth that is not objectively determinable through comparison to reality is by definition unknowable and cannot be discerned.
- Any conceivable method of producing truths needs to be validated scientifically and would therefore necessarily be a scientific method of discerning truth.
- Any conceivable method of validating truths needs to be confirmed scientifically and would therefore necessarily end up being a scientific method of validating truth.
Truth, as defined by my opponent is “that which is objectively real”. I’d prefer to use a formal definition than this
To know something is true, you must be able to confirm that it matches objective reality - and that can only be done via observation of that reality.
“How do you know that what you observe is objectively what it appears to be? Science relies on human sensory input and instrumentation, and then it requires you to infer explanations based on your own observations of reality and then test those explanations. That leads to several things which make science far from ultimate...”
“Science cannot tell you what things are, only how they appear to behave.”“Science does not know the difference between what "works" and what is true when it comes to explaining the phenomena that are observed.”
“science relies on humans making up answers and then testing them, and human understanding cannot be increased indefinitely using a system which requires human induction in the first place.”
for something to be true, it must be concordant with reality
Nothing in science is predicated solely on the involvement of humans.
“You seem to be conflating "that which is observed" with "reality"
“You seem to be misrepresenting my point. Whether it is a machine or a human or even an extraterrestrial doing the induction it is still reliant on induction. I never meant to imply that only humans can do science, only that it is limited (for humans) by what humans can observe and then postulate as an explanation of what is observed. “
Pro ignored 90 % of Cons argument throughout the debate which is poor conduct.
Example 1:
Pro never addressed R1 Truth and Knowing its true section by Con
Example 2:
Pro never addressed R1 The Primacy of science, the second half of the argument and instead only analyzed one sentence in the entire section which is poor conduct since they're ignoring 80 Percent of Cons argument which led the debate in a circle and completely ruined the rhythm of the debate.
Example 3:
Pro never addressed the Requirement for Empiricism section in R2
To conclude, Pro ignored 90 percent of Cons argument which made the debate tedious to read and lead the debate in circles.
That is poor conduct on Pro's part.
Here we go!
Arguments
Pro’s entire argument was about whether or not what we observe is what reality actually is. He says that what something appears to be isn’t necessarily what it is. However, as Con points out, if something can’t be observed then it can’t be known.
Con’s main argument is that because science is strictly about observing and empiricism, literally anything and everything can be discovered through it except for those things that cannot be known. He then goes on to make the argument that any other better method would necessarily become a part of science itself.
Pro’s only rebuttal is that we can’t truly know that what we observe is the truth, but he fails to give evidence as to why this is the case. As Con says, what we observe is all we have, and therefore it is what we should rely on.
Because of the lack of rebuttals and repetitiveness on Pro’s part, I have to give arguments to Con.
Not much to say here. From the outset, Pro's position seems impossible to uphold. His argument is, and I'm quoting his first three sentences here:
"I am not arguing here that there is any particular system currently devised which is superior to science, I don't know of it if it exists. I am arguing that science is not the ultimate system, as in the best possible way to discern the truth. There are numerous flaws/shortcomings with scientific methodology and I will attempt to prove that there is clearly room for a better system to be created."
As Con either argues directly or insinuates throughout the debate, this is a bit of a confounding position. Pro wants to establish that science isn't better than some unknown (and perhaps unknowable) system of discerning what the truth is. Con points out that it's entirely possible that we will never know how to establish things like the true nature of reality, so if that's the case, is Pro even comparing against something that could plausibly exist at some future date? I don't see it. Pro's argument requires that a method for establishing truth exist and be usable to some extent, yet he never establishes that it's even possible. It's also unclear how science is incapable of incorporating other methods of establishing truth, since science is only limited by our current knowledge of how truth should be established (inductively). That really hampers Pro's argument.
Meanwhile, Con's points go wholly unaddressed. He provides solid arguments on empiricism and the incorporation of improvements in validating truth (as mentioned above), as well as the reality that there are unknowable truths. Empiricism alone tells me that science has a capacity to establish truth that other available methods simply cannot match. Even if I buy all of Pro's arguments, it just tells me where flaws exist in the ability of science to discern the truth currently - it doesn't tell me that science can't evolve to fit a new paradigm for establishing truth. That's sufficient reason for me to vote Con.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
I definitely agree with you @ Ramshutu. In the past I have removed tied votes that don’t explain arguments. We are most likely going to have to MEEP this when we have our next MEEP.
I will reflect on the issue. It has been debated significantly within moderation as well. I am well aware of the reasons why it is bad, and, in general, I agree with those reasons, but much of the debate I am having is over how to read the COC. For now, tied votes will continued to be unmoderatable, but that's in no way my last word on the question.
Hi Bsh - I wanted to ask you to review your decisions with regards to the spate of tied votes - and the precedent accepting them sets.
Firstly, there are two relevant portions of the CoC
“A vote bomb is a vote cast without a sufficient argument, >>>>>>>a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate<<<<<<, a vote which literally doesn’t make sense (e.g. it’s contradictory), or a vote cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed.”
Additionally - when done repeatedly over multiple debates: “Spam is any content which is nonsensical or excessively repetitive.” while not all tied votes are spam, many of the more recent ones are meaningless/nonsensical and from RM in particular have Ben excessively repetitive.
Whilst a tied debate doesn’t directly affect the outcome: it may have an impact if people are, say, searching for debates that haven’t been voted on, and may mean debates aren’t given legitimate votes and end in ties.
It has an impact on perception of the site - allowing clearly absurd votes with no points does not set a good precedent into the future.
Finally whilst trivial - it’s mainly being done to bump vote count to obtain medals or status. As such these votes are clearly attempts to game the system, which largely undermines the purpose of it.
I would encourage you to re-examine this precedent set, and if possible remove these reported votes under the vote bomb/spam rules.
Don’t worry, I gotchu
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
Define "the truth." It's very vague.