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
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.