Instigator / Pro
28
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#796

Science is not the ultimate methodology which can be used to discern the truth.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
15
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
4
5

After 5 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
35
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Hmmmmmmmmm.