Knowledge has inherent value

I thank my opposition for his rebuttals. "…you reached no logical conclusions. Instead you rattled of lengthily about Kant and Shakespeare I could only discern the following arguments…" Firstly, my opponent has ignored the fact that I also "rattled" on "lengthily" about Plato stating his logical conclusion that knowledge has an inherent value that comes from its consistency and certainty. This cannot be denied as being a logical conclusion (even if one believes it to be a wrong one). 1)The definition of utility "value is a synonym for utility? " Much of my opponent's argument revolves around the illicitly persuasive definition of utility. Utility and value are not at all synonymous unless you subscribe to a utilitarian way of thinking or a similar school. Either way, value is utility is a debate in itself and cannot simply be accepted as synonymous with value, when a definition has already been put forth and accepted in this debate. A good example of how utility and value differ is that of art. Many would say that the value of art has absolutely nothing to do with utility. This view is taken to its limits in the famous Oscar Wilde quote "all art is useless" [1]. Mr. Wilde continued his work in art and never followed this quote with na "art is without value". Furthermore, something so many dedicate their life to can hardly be called "unimportant". In fact, art is present throughout history and few would argue that it couldn't be described as important (an accepted synonym to value). [1] . http://www.artquotes.net... 2)Confusing the Median with the Message "thus it is clear they receive a negative utility from the ads as they are willing to sacrifice money (equal to the amount of negative utility) to remove those ads Thus they retain a negative utility from the knowledge in those ads" This argument is based entirely on the fallacy of division. The fact that the whole has a certain attribute does not mean its parts do. Just because the ads have a negative utility does not mean the knowledge contained therein has a negative utility. This is easily demonstrable we need simply ask why people will pay to have them removed. Is it because they wish they did not know how much Viagra costs? No, it is generally because the ads offer a distraction, or make pages load slower, or because they are repetitive and obnoxious. No one pays to have the information removed from their head. It is the other qualities of ads that offer a negative utility. A similar mistake is made in the argument that humans throw away garbage despite its potential for good quality manure. All this proves is that knowledge is in fact optional. People do not have to act on the fact that garbage is potentially very important for our agricultural system. Indeed, if they do throw the garbage out it is because they know it will begin to smell and be unpleasant. This is as much a knowledge claim as using it for manure. They value the absence of garbage because they know that if garbage were there it would be a lot less pleasant. The garbage itself is not valued, but all of these facts are at least implicitly valued as people use them to make such decisions as whether or not to keep garbage. 3)Just an Example "Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job. All irrelevant information" This information is a bit unclear, but not irrelevant I am simply showing that the assertion that these ads offer no value is false. Referring back to the argument that any knowledge in conjunction with knowledge of benefit leads to value, it is shown here that it is possible to derive value from even the seemingly most annoying and "irrelevant information" 4)Fallacy of Composition I will restate where my opponent's syllogism fails: "2. There is more irrelevant knowledge than relevant knowledge (common knowledge) 3. Knowledge on the whole is irrelevant (deduction) 4. Knowledge on the whole has no value (transitive)" My opponent asserts that there is knowledge that is irrelevant. He then claims that all knowledge is irrelevant. Even if it is accepted that irrelevant knowledge is possible (which I have refuted) than it still relies on the implicit assumption that because parts of all knowledge are irrelevant all knowledge is irrelevant. The second assertion is that irrelevant knowledge, a part of all knowledge, is not valuable, therefore knowledge as a whole is not valuable. The premise that more knowledge is irrelevant than relevant does not bridge this gap, it still relies on the implicit assumption that the characteristic of the majority of parts is necessarily ascribed to the whole. I hope I have satisfied my opponent's request. 5)A Point in Time (the audience will soon realize this is an irresistible though subtle pun) "it only gains value when it becomes relevant and not until that point in time. It's quite clear that there is only a small body of relevant information in most peoples lives that holds value. Otherwise there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use that has no value to us. " My opponent concedes in this same paragraph states that all of this "irrelevant information" can be made relevant. It is then said that "there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use…". This is a direct contradiction which helps to illustrate why time is not an issue in value. Firstly, he states that relevant information is useful. He then states all irrelevant information can be made relevant. Therefore what he is stating by proxy is that all irrelevant information can be useful. How can this "massive body" be of no use and useful at the same time? It cannot. The quality of being valuable the quality of offering opportunity is within the knowledge at all times, it is only realized at a specific time. Stating that value is inserted at the line where it is "made useful" is an arbitrary line that is difficult to outline and offers new problems to my opponent's argument. At what point is it made useful? Is it when one realizes that they can use it? Because surely it was useful beforehand and simply not used. Is it made useful at the point in which it is used? Are hammers only useful when someone is using a hammer? No, it is an inherent quality. Similarly, value is an inherent quality in knowledge, not solely because it is useful, but because it at all times offers the potential to become important. 6)Selectivity I agree fully that the human mind must be selective. How can a human know what knowledge is best to have without exploring the knowledge that is not as valuable? All knowledge must be explored to truly have the brain filled with the best knowledge to have. You cannot say that a thing has a quality i. e. irrelevance until you know and judge that thing. What's more the greater value of one thing does not deprive value entirely from another thing. It only lessens it. I concede that "there is nothing to say it will not at a later date" is a fallacy and I thank my opponent for his correction". In conclusion, an effective refutation of all point brought up in my opponent's last round has been offered and all points from previous rounds of pro have been affirmed.