Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2016, 09:13 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's try this thought experiment. You wake up in a dark shed with no windows and you have no memory... total alzheimers. It's pitch dark. You can't find a door and if you did find it, it would be locked. You speculate, is there even another world outside of this enclosed dark space? You have no testable, falsifiable, rational, or empirical evidence to believe there is any other world other than the inside of this shed and cannot from your present position arrive at any. You must conclude this is the sum total of the world.

RocketSurgeon and Evolutionkills have rebutted this argument. Adequately I think.

If I understand you. Your thought process in a nutshell. That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yet it is important to note that it is obviously not evidence of presence for reasons you've already been provided with.

You exhibit a lack of understanding of the tentative nature of the scientific approach and its conclusions. You don't understand that being wrong is not an indictment of the scientific method but rather an integral part of the process.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tomilay's post
08-09-2016, 10:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 07:40 AM)xear Wrote:  If you were a primitive man who had no experience of telephones, you would have to conclude that if you smashed the phone then you would have fully ended whatever voice it produced. You would also have to conclude that anyone who brought in a phone also brought in the voice coming from it at the same time. You would certainly have to believe that the voice that came from the phone was started when the phone was built. No one could prove to you, in your Papua New Guinea hut, that the phone and voice are possibly separable.

A rather childish plagiarism of the Watchmaker argument. Long debunked. Repeatedly debunked, actually.

(08-09-2016 07:40 AM)xear Wrote:  There would be no contrary evidence and you would be "right" in saying they are co-emergent.

No, you would be wrong. You would just believe you are right.

I'm sure that Becher, Stahl and their colleagues "knew" that the phlogiston theory was correct. They were wrong, of course, and their incorrect belief had no effect on reality.

Just like your happy dream.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:RocketSurgeon and Evolutionkills have rebutted this argument. Adequately I think.


Rebutted this argument?

Ek wrote:"Wow, a poor man's take on Plato's allegory of the cave? You're about 2,500 years late to the party."

"Poor man's Plato cave" is kind of funny but hardly rebuts the argument.


RocketSurgeon76 wrote:

"And that would be the correct conclusion, pending additional evidence to the contrary. If we had a cellmate (shedmate?) who was just as blind/amnesiac, but who kept insisting that he knew about the world outside of our shed, we would be right to consider him delusional. Whether or not there actually is something beyond the shed is irrelevant to the knowledge of the two men inside. What would I say to a guy who said that the entire world outside our shed was composed of water, and we were a thousand meters under the ocean? Or that we were floating in deep space? Et cetera. There's a reason we don't buy into speculations about things that are without evidence and which cannot be tested.

You set up a truism (since we already know there's a world), deprive the occupants of the shed a way to detect what we already know, and then say, "Aha! But there really is a world out there!" Except that it could just as easily be true (from the POV of the shed's occupants) that they're surrounded by vacuum and a horde of invisible space dragons. Get it?"


This does nothing to rebut the argument. I am not insisting I know what is outside the shed, I'm saying there are many possibilities and because there is no physical evidence they can't all be eliminated. What do I know for sure? Nothing. We've already covered that. Rocket says he wouldn't buy into the speculation since he can't test it. Great. He also can't test whether consciousness can exist without a brain and won't buy into that, great.

That doesn't rebut the argument, it just means its not for him.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)xear Wrote:  I am not insisting I know what is outside the shed, I'm saying there are many possibilities and because there is no physical evidence they can't all be eliminated.

The point is that there is no reason to believe that any of those possibilities are true.

Quote:What do I know for sure? Nothing. We've already covered that. Rocket says he wouldn't buy into the speculation since he can't test it. Great. He also can't test whether consciousness can exist without a brain and won't buy into that, great.

That doesn't rebut the argument, it just means its not for him.

It means that anybody who does accept it as anything more than idle speculation (aka fantasy) is not being rational. By the way, you have not made an argument. All you have made is an unsupported assertion.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
08-09-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)xear Wrote:  Rebutted this argument?

Ek wrote:"Wow, a poor man's take on Plato's allegory of the cave? You're about 2,500 years late to the party."

"Poor man's Plato cave" is kind of funny but hardly rebuts the argument.

You are correct. You can't really refute something that wasn't made. As several of us pointed out, your analogy was flawed and doesn't meet the requirements of a debatable argument.

In any event, here is a link to the Allegory of the Cave:
Wikipedia: Plato's Cave

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-09-2016, 12:22 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)xear Wrote:  He also can't test whether consciousness can exist without a brain and won't buy into that, great.

What evidence do you have that a consciousness can exist outside of a brain?

We have scientific evidence that consciousness is a byproduct of our brain chemistry.

We know it can be altered deliberately, accidentally and through natural processes.

If you are proposing that a consciousness can exist outside a body, without a brain, then you have to present a theory and justify it with evidence.

Simply saying "what if" is a pointless exercise.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-09-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Yes, somebody could prove it in the Papua New Guinea hut. They could demonstrate how phones work and explain the science behind it.

I just post here for my own amusement and fun, I don't expect anyone to take any of this seriously. I think it's less fun if you take every word literally or don't try to get into the essence of the analogy.

In a video on this thread that someone posted of Sam Harris he said something like he could prove the brain creates consciousness by simply damaging certain parts of it and consciousness would end. Well our man in the Papua New Guinea hut could equally prove that the voice was in the phone by damaging the phone and the voice would disappear.

No Sam, you don't have proof this way that the brain creates consciousness, nor do you have proof that you actually graduated from Logic 101 or even the remedial classwork.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

Rolleyes

Now dear Xear is thinking they know better about the brain and its function than a proffesional in the field.

I would make the suggestion that Xear is being sarcastic/ironic.....

..... but I don't think Xear would get either connotation even if they were burlesque twins who'd painted themselves purple, hung signs around their necks and jumped up to dance naked on a table infront of him/her.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Rolleyes

Now dear Xear is thinking they know better about the brain and its function than a proffesional in the field.

I would make the suggestion that Xear is being sarcastic/ironic.....

..... but I don't think Xear would get either connotation even if they were burlesque twins who'd painted themselves purple, hung signs around their necks and jumped up to dance naked on a table infront of him/her.

You seem to have a vivid imagination. Care to tell us more? Drinking Beverage Tongue

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:55 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 12:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Rolleyes

Now dear Xear is thinking they know better about the brain and its function than a proffesional in the field.

I would make the suggestion that Xear is being sarcastic/ironic.....

..... but I don't think Xear would get either connotation even if they were burlesque twins who'd painted themselves purple, hung signs around their necks and jumped up to dance naked on a table infront of him/her.

You seem to have a vivid imagination. Care to tell us more? Drinking Beverage Tongue


Not really.

Though I partially await dear Xear's next cunning word play.

Heck, they'll possibly even paint stripes on it and attempt to call it a badger.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: