The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like.
Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong. This would be the only alternative that fits our model of reality. That would mean they're wrong in a way that is consistent and I will prove this to you with an example.
Let's say I think I'm eating a cracker. But it's actually toast.
Since reality is consistently wrong, that means every time I actually eat toast, I will think I'm eating a cracker.
to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive.
Therefore, my reality is still real because even though I don't see things exactly how they are, my abstraction of reality is congruent to reality and allows me to navigate it.
This might seem arbitrary, but this is actually what happens. 99% of our bodies is space between the atoms, but we see reality without those spaces for practical reasons. So what we see is just a congruent abstraction and there is no way that it can be fake.
You telling me it's not proof does not make it the case. If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions, then it's proven. It's not my fault that you don't know what proof is. The big bang is not analogous in this case. The big bang is not a complete theory so it's only the "best" explanation. Mine is this only explanation because my demonstration of consistency is a defeater to the contrary.
What do you mean more correct? You're still being incoherent. Nobody's senses are "more correct" than one another. The person who is not blind simply has "more complete" senses because he's not missing his eyesight. I keep telling you that this is not a good counter but it seems that you're married to this idea.
1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results.
2. I know you weren't speaking about fantasy, I was. A blind person is blind because the organ that gives them sight is damaged. All of their senses that are still working work consistently and the sense that is broken is consistently broken. It's kind of embarrassing that you think this is a good counterargument. Especially since you bragged about how easy it would be to rebut me. As you would say "OMEGALULZ"
3. The scientific process has accounted for nearly all aspects of sense and given good explanations for them. Furthermore, the scientific consensus is the single most reliable source of information concerning biology and physics. So if you reject science, then cool. But you don't get to throw shade on me for using the best tools available. I'll keep using my iPhone and you can go play with your flip phone.
4. I don't know where you get the idea of the blind man being "wrong" you're using incoherent language.
5. That's because you brought up the blind man example as a red herring and you keep parading that stinky fish around because you don't have any real way to disprove me. This is why solipsism is not taken seriously by actual philosophers.
6. Logic doesn't have to be grounded. That's just something that Christian Presupps say to distract people from their bad positions. Logic is a tautology and is true by definition. tisk tisk.
Hmm. you claim an easy win and then double talk cause it wasn't easy. Yeah. I made it hard. You're darn tootin' I did. I made it hard by using truth to combat your unwarranted skepticism. There is a point when justified denial turns into a personal incredulity fallacy and you're treading that line right now.
1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved.
2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument.
4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me.
5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality.
6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case.
I don't think that it's unfair for new arguments to be presented in the final round. That's like saying that white can't enjoy a first move advantage in chess. It's the nature of the game. It is on the instigator to cover any possible weak points in their arguments. If this is done, then any new points brought up in the final round are liable to be ineffective or even harmful to the contender's position.
This is common myth I see when talking about solipsism and the like. I always see people so quick to say that our senses can be wrong. What I never see people ask is: Why are they wrong? How are they wrong? What can we tell from them being wrong?
The "disagreements" that you're talking about are not over the objective observations, but rather people's subjective opinions about the objects. I'll give an example so this isn't just a claim:
Say two people are arguing about a rock. Both people agree about the color of the rock, and the weight of the rock, they both agree the rock sinks in the water, but they disagree on if the rock is prettier than the other rock next to it, they disagree whether or not the rock taste better than soup, they disagree on what the rock sounds like when they drop it. They disagree on what the shape of the rock reminds them of. etc. etc.
So what we're clearly seeing here is a difference of opinion, not a difference of reality.
I won't go into those questions I mentioned because I don't want to accidentally become Con, lol.
I realize in hindsight that I came off a bit too aggressive in that last statement. I had no malicious intent. It's just the way I debate and I only intend to attack ideas, not people. Just putting that out there.
Put plainly, It looks like double talk going from Christian to Pagan. I might have had a bias towards the line because I'm not a Theist. But it's a rap battle and my only judgement was my overall feeling of how I liked each rhyme. The fact is that RM's final rounds were "that fire" as the kids say.
It's a rap battle... Furthermore, it does lose you mad cred because you're playing crypts and bloods at the same time. Keeping tabs up on both. Dropped your fam a hot dime, while you violated your oath.
If you're mad about it, we can settle this with a rap battle. You'll probably win, but I'm not one to turn away a challenge.
I'd love to be a stickler, so I will. Technically, the BoP would solely fall on the pro choice advocate for a very specific reason. We're talking about civil rights. In the case of civil rights, the proper way to handle BoP is to assume that every person gets every right and then provide BoPs to say why they shouldn't. Following this methodology, one must concluded that The Pro Life position is default position and can be handled entirely with skepticism. Obviously you can't opt for shared BoP, so the question will ultimately come down to how you want to debate it, but it is good practice for use to recognize when BoP is not shared for logical reasons.
I agree that putting rules in debates is wrong. It's goal tending. It's just a way for the poster to create a zero sum game. It's the kid at the play ground saying "let's playing cowboys and Indians, but I'm the Indian and I have an invincible shield so you can't hurt me"
Some rules can be okay for the sake of fun (like assuming a premise axiomatically on both sides to make the argument more exciting) But overall, the rule always somehow restricts what kind of arguments their opponent can make and that's not cool. If someone makes a bad argument, you have every right to embarrass that idea by tearing it down in front of them, but telling them they can't make that bad argument is a step too far, because what if that "bad" argument is the only argument that can rebut you? There are already rules set in place in a debate for conduct, and BoP. Adding to that is changing the way a debate works. It's like when people put money on free parking in Monopoly. It sounds fun until everyone is rolling in dough and the game never ends.
Following this one. It's nice to see a debate that isn't specifically about Christianity for once. Nothing against those debates. It's just there's soooo many of them.
Interesting topic. Shame it wasn't played out all the way. The story about the twins is fascinating but I see a hole in the argument. Pro stated that it was "two people sharing one brain" But this is not actually accurate. The cited article clearly stated that there was a wall between their brains that was so unique that it has it's own name. Both of them still had separate brains and after doing a little bit of research I was able to find that the behaviors that Pro highlighted from the article are easily explained physically. The parts of the brains that are connected is used for sensory and motor function, which the twins can co control. So this makes physical sense. The parts of them that are different, personality, quirks, etc. were other parts of their respective brains that were not connected. If the twins in fact had one unified brain, this story would have been truly amazing, but sadly, this was not the case.
Also, on your syllogism, the conclusion was suppose to be "then dualism is true" I'm assuming it was just a typo.
Well, there's a lot of reasons it doesn't follow. You ignored the rule of distribution. There is no logical connectivity between your first two premises, which mean they're non sequiturs (technically, all fallacies are non sequiturs, fun fact) The reason is because there is no middle term that is in both premise 1 and premise 2. Furthermore, the conclusion is only allowed to contain things that were in the first 2 premises, which it didn't. It added things that weren't in the first two. It could have been the case that your conclusion did logically follow, but if that's the case, you did not use the right set of premises. It's not entirely your fault. Categorical syllogisms are extremely specific in usage and most people can't use them properly. They also have limited proving power for this reason. You should have used propositional logic because it would have been much easier. Then you could have done it easily. For example.
1. Physical things can only be proven physically
2. If physical things can only be observed physically, then non physical things can only be proved non physically.
C. non physical things can only be proven non physically.
This is a syllogism constructed using modus ponen and is much easier to do. The important thing here is to either affirm the antecedent (The first half of premise 2). Or negate the Consequent (The second half of premise 2) Don't ever do the opposite or it's a fallacy. When I say affirm or negate. I"m talking about how the first premise relates to the second premise. If I was doing a disjunctive syllogism which use modus tollens instead. I would make the first premise would have to deny the consequent. Sorry if I hurt your feelings about your logic skills. I'm just trying to be honest here.
Okay, I'm going to attempt to explain this to you so we can move passed this. I gave my criticisms of both sides and then weighed them. In the end, his argument met the BoP and yours didn't. Your argument doesn't magically meet the burden just because Pro didn't give the exact same criticism as me. Pro convinced me that his argument was true. Nothing in your argument countered this, so even if your syllogisms were perfect, I still would have to vote Pro unless one of your counter arguments debunks the burden that he met.
Lack of voting rules? Yeah right. This place is strict. I'll be surprised If I can keep this one up, lol.
Anyway.
I accounted for that. The fact is that no concession he made had any affect on his BOP. Saying some could possible be the case is not a strong enough case to debunk the contrary.
That doesn't matter. My job as a voter is to address how strong your arguments were. Your syllogisms were poorly structured. Even though pro accepted C1, that doesn't change the fact that the structure was invalid. C1 can be true and your structure can be invalid at the same time. Furthermore, all of your syllogisms had the same problem, so having C1 would just get you caught up at C2 instead.
Nonsense. Your Round 2 and 3 arguments are simply counterpoints to defend your Round 1 argument, which I debunked. Don't get mad at me because you didn't use syllogisms properly. I addressed the main arguments as per the voting rules and your subsequent arguments did nothing to revive your main arguments at all.
Well it doesn't matter if we agree, that's just a trap to make it look like I didn't understand your argument. The only thing that matters is what the argument ultimately amounts to.
It's the Kalam cosmological argument with the God assumption added in.
You can word it however you want. But that is ultimately what you're advocating for.
The reason this premise gets kicked to the curb is simple. There's no justification for it. Baseline premises come from induction. This is how we build up to higher conclusions. God cannot be verified via identity (revealing himself) So we cannot justify god via induction. Furthermore, uncaused causes cannot come from induction because they suffer the same problem as god. Basically. Your argument is built on a foundation of quick sand.
Be Gentle. My flow isn't sick nor is it funky fresh or lit. I'm not woke and I don't got that fire. The only disses I have are logical discourses. Lets do this.
I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like.
The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like.
Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong. This would be the only alternative that fits our model of reality. That would mean they're wrong in a way that is consistent and I will prove this to you with an example.
Let's say I think I'm eating a cracker. But it's actually toast.
Since reality is consistently wrong, that means every time I actually eat toast, I will think I'm eating a cracker.
to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive.
Therefore, my reality is still real because even though I don't see things exactly how they are, my abstraction of reality is congruent to reality and allows me to navigate it.
This might seem arbitrary, but this is actually what happens. 99% of our bodies is space between the atoms, but we see reality without those spaces for practical reasons. So what we see is just a congruent abstraction and there is no way that it can be fake.
This is why solipsism doesn't work.
You telling me it's not proof does not make it the case. If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions, then it's proven. It's not my fault that you don't know what proof is. The big bang is not analogous in this case. The big bang is not a complete theory so it's only the "best" explanation. Mine is this only explanation because my demonstration of consistency is a defeater to the contrary.
What do you mean more correct? You're still being incoherent. Nobody's senses are "more correct" than one another. The person who is not blind simply has "more complete" senses because he's not missing his eyesight. I keep telling you that this is not a good counter but it seems that you're married to this idea.
1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results.
2. I know you weren't speaking about fantasy, I was. A blind person is blind because the organ that gives them sight is damaged. All of their senses that are still working work consistently and the sense that is broken is consistently broken. It's kind of embarrassing that you think this is a good counterargument. Especially since you bragged about how easy it would be to rebut me. As you would say "OMEGALULZ"
3. The scientific process has accounted for nearly all aspects of sense and given good explanations for them. Furthermore, the scientific consensus is the single most reliable source of information concerning biology and physics. So if you reject science, then cool. But you don't get to throw shade on me for using the best tools available. I'll keep using my iPhone and you can go play with your flip phone.
4. I don't know where you get the idea of the blind man being "wrong" you're using incoherent language.
5. That's because you brought up the blind man example as a red herring and you keep parading that stinky fish around because you don't have any real way to disprove me. This is why solipsism is not taken seriously by actual philosophers.
6. Logic doesn't have to be grounded. That's just something that Christian Presupps say to distract people from their bad positions. Logic is a tautology and is true by definition. tisk tisk.
Hmm. you claim an easy win and then double talk cause it wasn't easy. Yeah. I made it hard. You're darn tootin' I did. I made it hard by using truth to combat your unwarranted skepticism. There is a point when justified denial turns into a personal incredulity fallacy and you're treading that line right now.
1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved.
2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument.
4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me.
5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality.
6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case.
Easy win you say?
I don't agree that we can't verify our reality, but this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on this.
I don't think that it's unfair for new arguments to be presented in the final round. That's like saying that white can't enjoy a first move advantage in chess. It's the nature of the game. It is on the instigator to cover any possible weak points in their arguments. If this is done, then any new points brought up in the final round are liable to be ineffective or even harmful to the contender's position.
Checkmate.
He hit the nail on the head right there. This argument is essentially A = A
This is common myth I see when talking about solipsism and the like. I always see people so quick to say that our senses can be wrong. What I never see people ask is: Why are they wrong? How are they wrong? What can we tell from them being wrong?
The "disagreements" that you're talking about are not over the objective observations, but rather people's subjective opinions about the objects. I'll give an example so this isn't just a claim:
Say two people are arguing about a rock. Both people agree about the color of the rock, and the weight of the rock, they both agree the rock sinks in the water, but they disagree on if the rock is prettier than the other rock next to it, they disagree whether or not the rock taste better than soup, they disagree on what the rock sounds like when they drop it. They disagree on what the shape of the rock reminds them of. etc. etc.
So what we're clearly seeing here is a difference of opinion, not a difference of reality.
I won't go into those questions I mentioned because I don't want to accidentally become Con, lol.
Indeed. But I intend to improve in the places where I lacked in this argument before. I will use your blade to further mold my armor.
How'd he get banned? That escalated quickly. He seemed fine the other day.
I realize in hindsight that I came off a bit too aggressive in that last statement. I had no malicious intent. It's just the way I debate and I only intend to attack ideas, not people. Just putting that out there.
Pro starts the debate by immediately shifting the burden of proof in the wrong direction.
Classic apologist tactic.
You're the one making the claim (We cannot prove A or B)
That's a positive claim which holds a burden of proof.
Con has one of two options.
Con can say (We cannot know if A or B can be proven or not)
In which case the BoP falls squarely on Pro.
or Con can say (We can prove A or B)
In which case it's a shared BoP.
The BoP isn't a contingency that can just be thrown around as you sit fit. There are guidelines for it.
Indeed. ooo, we had a fun debate last time right?
Put plainly, It looks like double talk going from Christian to Pagan. I might have had a bias towards the line because I'm not a Theist. But it's a rap battle and my only judgement was my overall feeling of how I liked each rhyme. The fact is that RM's final rounds were "that fire" as the kids say.
It's called a metaphor.
It's a rap battle... Furthermore, it does lose you mad cred because you're playing crypts and bloods at the same time. Keeping tabs up on both. Dropped your fam a hot dime, while you violated your oath.
If you're mad about it, we can settle this with a rap battle. You'll probably win, but I'm not one to turn away a challenge.
My bad. C4 was reached using MPP. I forgot to write it the final time, lol.
I'd love to be a stickler, so I will. Technically, the BoP would solely fall on the pro choice advocate for a very specific reason. We're talking about civil rights. In the case of civil rights, the proper way to handle BoP is to assume that every person gets every right and then provide BoPs to say why they shouldn't. Following this methodology, one must concluded that The Pro Life position is default position and can be handled entirely with skepticism. Obviously you can't opt for shared BoP, so the question will ultimately come down to how you want to debate it, but it is good practice for use to recognize when BoP is not shared for logical reasons.
I agree that putting rules in debates is wrong. It's goal tending. It's just a way for the poster to create a zero sum game. It's the kid at the play ground saying "let's playing cowboys and Indians, but I'm the Indian and I have an invincible shield so you can't hurt me"
Some rules can be okay for the sake of fun (like assuming a premise axiomatically on both sides to make the argument more exciting) But overall, the rule always somehow restricts what kind of arguments their opponent can make and that's not cool. If someone makes a bad argument, you have every right to embarrass that idea by tearing it down in front of them, but telling them they can't make that bad argument is a step too far, because what if that "bad" argument is the only argument that can rebut you? There are already rules set in place in a debate for conduct, and BoP. Adding to that is changing the way a debate works. It's like when people put money on free parking in Monopoly. It sounds fun until everyone is rolling in dough and the game never ends.
Yeah, I figured out what I did wrong before. Thanks though.
Following this one. It's nice to see a debate that isn't specifically about Christianity for once. Nothing against those debates. It's just there's soooo many of them.
Wow, I thought I posted my last rap earlier, lol. Good thing it saved.
Interesting topic. Shame it wasn't played out all the way. The story about the twins is fascinating but I see a hole in the argument. Pro stated that it was "two people sharing one brain" But this is not actually accurate. The cited article clearly stated that there was a wall between their brains that was so unique that it has it's own name. Both of them still had separate brains and after doing a little bit of research I was able to find that the behaviors that Pro highlighted from the article are easily explained physically. The parts of the brains that are connected is used for sensory and motor function, which the twins can co control. So this makes physical sense. The parts of them that are different, personality, quirks, etc. were other parts of their respective brains that were not connected. If the twins in fact had one unified brain, this story would have been truly amazing, but sadly, this was not the case.
Also, on your syllogism, the conclusion was suppose to be "then dualism is true" I'm assuming it was just a typo.
All abortions? No exceptions?
Well that was definitely the wrong side of youtube, lol.
Gave me something to research when I get bored, lol. I'm a total google freak.
Interesting .
Well, there's a lot of reasons it doesn't follow. You ignored the rule of distribution. There is no logical connectivity between your first two premises, which mean they're non sequiturs (technically, all fallacies are non sequiturs, fun fact) The reason is because there is no middle term that is in both premise 1 and premise 2. Furthermore, the conclusion is only allowed to contain things that were in the first 2 premises, which it didn't. It added things that weren't in the first two. It could have been the case that your conclusion did logically follow, but if that's the case, you did not use the right set of premises. It's not entirely your fault. Categorical syllogisms are extremely specific in usage and most people can't use them properly. They also have limited proving power for this reason. You should have used propositional logic because it would have been much easier. Then you could have done it easily. For example.
1. Physical things can only be proven physically
2. If physical things can only be observed physically, then non physical things can only be proved non physically.
C. non physical things can only be proven non physically.
This is a syllogism constructed using modus ponen and is much easier to do. The important thing here is to either affirm the antecedent (The first half of premise 2). Or negate the Consequent (The second half of premise 2) Don't ever do the opposite or it's a fallacy. When I say affirm or negate. I"m talking about how the first premise relates to the second premise. If I was doing a disjunctive syllogism which use modus tollens instead. I would make the first premise would have to deny the consequent. Sorry if I hurt your feelings about your logic skills. I'm just trying to be honest here.
No. Is it gross?
Well I don't know what officially makes one a rapper. But I'm a musician who can rap.
My written stuff is way better than what I did here, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDQLuyxk3k
Here's a funny one I did.
I rhymed Genius with Genus. Not itself, sick rap though
Okay, I'm going to attempt to explain this to you so we can move passed this. I gave my criticisms of both sides and then weighed them. In the end, his argument met the BoP and yours didn't. Your argument doesn't magically meet the burden just because Pro didn't give the exact same criticism as me. Pro convinced me that his argument was true. Nothing in your argument countered this, so even if your syllogisms were perfect, I still would have to vote Pro unless one of your counter arguments debunks the burden that he met.
Lack of voting rules? Yeah right. This place is strict. I'll be surprised If I can keep this one up, lol.
Anyway.
I accounted for that. The fact is that no concession he made had any affect on his BOP. Saying some could possible be the case is not a strong enough case to debunk the contrary.
That doesn't matter. My job as a voter is to address how strong your arguments were. Your syllogisms were poorly structured. Even though pro accepted C1, that doesn't change the fact that the structure was invalid. C1 can be true and your structure can be invalid at the same time. Furthermore, all of your syllogisms had the same problem, so having C1 would just get you caught up at C2 instead.
Nonsense. Your Round 2 and 3 arguments are simply counterpoints to defend your Round 1 argument, which I debunked. Don't get mad at me because you didn't use syllogisms properly. I addressed the main arguments as per the voting rules and your subsequent arguments did nothing to revive your main arguments at all.
Well it doesn't matter if we agree, that's just a trap to make it look like I didn't understand your argument. The only thing that matters is what the argument ultimately amounts to.
It's the Kalam cosmological argument with the God assumption added in.
You can word it however you want. But that is ultimately what you're advocating for.
I explained my reasoning for each point of voting. Votes are necessarily opinions. This is just bad modding.
The reason this premise gets kicked to the curb is simple. There's no justification for it. Baseline premises come from induction. This is how we build up to higher conclusions. God cannot be verified via identity (revealing himself) So we cannot justify god via induction. Furthermore, uncaused causes cannot come from induction because they suffer the same problem as god. Basically. Your argument is built on a foundation of quick sand.
Be Gentle. My flow isn't sick nor is it funky fresh or lit. I'm not woke and I don't got that fire. The only disses I have are logical discourses. Lets do this.
Sounds like game of thrones.
You seem to be in a really good mood today. I never see you deviate from serious statements.
I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like.
Well I was aiming for matter of fact with sound conduct. Did I fail? :(
*same goes*
So goes for my pick on DDO
No, it's a Jpeg for a chess variant that I coded for local use. I did it the lazy way without rule enforcement.
Yeah, unless I missed something, lol.
DDO
I see some familiar faces on here. I feel comfy already.