Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

Therefore I simply must thrust my arguments in and my opponent must still prove his point. I could simply refute his claims and the debate would be lost him but that is ok. So my opponent makes the argument put very simply that outside mathematics we need experience. " I am not 100% sure what this means since it is not phrased very clearly. I have presented my argument very clearly and Con's involvement demonstrates that he has understood it and is now trying to refute it. I would also like to point out that Con's refutations are self contradictory as he first argues in favor of solipsism, and then in favor of a priori knowledge! The one view is talking about not being certain about anything and the other one about being certain without knowing why. I will assume that Con is just playing devil's advocate ("thrusting his arguments"). Let us examine the individual arguments. Con's argument [1] Con said: “For the record the reason I bring up solipsism is because if a solipsist position is correct then no empirical evidence can be used in logic because only reason can be the guide. It is the only reliable evidence. ” To come back to my original point can Con give me an example of reason operating without experience/experimentation outside pure mathematics? The solipsist view is an extreme view. The key phrase is "if a solipsist position is correct". Such a view denies everything that we are. The first and foremost argument against it is that our whole operation is based on our ability to interact with the world. Even Con I am sure will admit that his operation in the world is not based on pure reason and that the results, if not perfect, are quite reliable. I have a sense of where my kitchen is and where the fridge is (yes I am thinking of food :)). Well yes I assume, but the evidence towards my assumption are overwhelming. I have done that again and again and I can be confident that the outcome will be the same. Tell you what. I will check . .. . .. I was right! The kitchen was there and the fridge was there as well. Believe me I really did it! I have been doing this experiment for the last year that I've been living here and the evidence is pretty conclusive. NOTE: Could it be a dream? No, cause I checked (more about that later). P1: Yes our sense are imperfect and not totally reliable. Yes our 'certainty' could be described as being statistically reached. But from that does not follow that everything we perceive is unreliable (see fridge example). Sorry to repeat my self but can Con give an example of something outside mathematics that can "be known with complete certainty" in general, and without being based on experience or experimentation(! !). I think that what Con is talking about is just inconceivable. A play of words. P2: Again the key here is how we define certainty. In a philosophical discussion it is really confusing but using common sense it quite evident. The easiest way to think about it is that we have statistical evidence regarding our experience of the world. We could say that there are different degrees of confidence but even if we are talking about absolute certainty that does not have anything to do with my point. I stated that "Logic can not reach certainty without experience/experimentation" and all Con is trying to prove is that logic can not reach anything at all since nothing is certain. The whole solipsism argument contradicts everything we are and everything we have achieved. It has been already philosophically refuted by Moore[1] and Wittgenstein[2]. I hope you will appreciate that I can not give an overview of their arguments because these complex writings have to be considered as a whole and cause my space is limited. Con's argument [2] There is only an overview, the dream argument and the kids argument. There are many ways that we can realize that we are dreaming while we are are dreaming. This is called lucid dreaming (LaBerge[3]). Dreaming as a different state of consciousness has its own characteristics. If Con is confusing dreams for reality (I assume and hope that he is not doing it the other way around) then he should refine his perception. Many things are different, ranging from objects and people constantly transforming to expectations manifesting as reality and there are also reality check techniques. Concerning the kids argument can Con demonstrate how exactly the mind concluded there is a fight using logic that is not based on experience? Con's argument [3] This is an overview and not an argument. I will just refute one of Con’s a priori' knowledge examples to keep things going. "A bachelor is an unmarried male" can only be understood based on experiential facts. This should be self evident but I will expand. The word bachelor is a complex concept that presupposes that we know what is “unmarried” and what is “male”. How did Con learned the concept of male. Did he used reason? No. He learned the concept probably by his parents pointing towards him and his father, after he asked the question himself or something along this lines. The main point is did he learned the concept without experience? Again, this is inconceivable and I challenge Con to tell me where and how exactly did he reason out the word male and unmarried in order to use it to define the word bachelor. Again, I invite Con to look at Moore[1] and Wittgenstein[2] to clarify his thinking on these matters. Conclusion Con chose to put forward as rebuttals a selection of existing philosophies. I would like to bring to attention the fact that I am writing my own propositions and rebuttals and that I have limited space in which I can not in detail refute three major schools of thought. Even under these circumstances I have provided enough evidence to render the rebuttals unsuccessful. A summary of my points: Con is supporting viewpoints that he does not follow in real life. Before you charge me with some kind of variation of 'ad hominem'! I am just using this to point that his solipsist argument is purely theoretical and contradicts both mine and his experience of the world. He is talking about the solipsist view but he is living according to the view I presented in my opening statement. Even if we take the solipsist argument as true (which we shouldn't as I have indicated), that does not disprove my point. It merely states that Logic can not achieve certainty and that is it. The only way out of that is for Con to provide an example in which certainty arrives from pure reason that does not need any experience or experimentation. Just to demonstrate further the impossibility of that task, I would like to point that even language is learned through experience. Descartes doubt has the same bearing on my argument as the solipsist one. It just takes it to an impractical extreme. Regarding specific rebuttal, as Con is providing overviews of other peoples philosophies, I will point him to my own references (as provided) where he can be informed. The only argument that he provided was the dream one which I refuted pointing to research on “Lucid Dreaming”. Again remember that even if we can only be sure of our own existence that is not a rebuttal of my resolution but an extension of it to an extreme level. Finally regarding a priori assumptions this is again just a reiteration of a particular philosophical argument without any actual argumentation. Nevertheless, I provided a rebuttal to keep things going. Con should choose one of his a priori statements and argue in its favor. Con said: “Knowing all this there can be no other vote but a negative today. Vote Con. ” I would say: “Judging from all that’s been written, there can be no other vote but a positive today. Vote Pro. ” :) [1] . http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com... [2] . http://www.ditext.com... [3] LaBerge, S. & Rheingold, H. , 1990. Exploring the world of lucid dreaming. New York