This House Believes That Sense Experience Is The Ultimate Source of Knowledge!

I have had immense pleasure debating this, and I am extremely grateful to Marc for both the opportunity and the competition. With that, let me begin by addressing the general issues. It was agreed to by Marc that he had the greater part of the onus. Yet he did not present much argumentation of his own, while he shows that knowledge may be through sense experience, he makes no argument in trying to show how that makes sense experience the ultimate source, nor does he contend his many assertions. These assertions which include (but are not limited to) Logical Positivism, Mathematics being analytic a posteriori, the only knowledge that is knowledge must be applied to this world to prove. These assertions loose him the debate, for on these assertions is based his entire case (even the rebuttals). He also provides no original argument attacking rationalism, as I have done by arguing that all sense knowledge is subjective. While Logical Positivism may not have been used, it was an underlying theme nearly everywhere. My arguments against Logical Positivism stand unrefuted. 14. Of Mathematica:(14.1) As the paper by a senior mathematician at a prestigious university shows, Applied and Pure Mathematics are one and the same in process. If I were to say 2+2=4 for only theoretical purposes then this would be Pure Mathematics, if I were to say that if I have 2 candies, and another 2 candies then I will have 4 candies this is applied mathematics. Marc has to show why one holds and the other does not, something he never speaks about in detail. Considering how every single proof is a part of Pure Mathematics it seems rather foolish for Marc to insinuate that Pure Mathematics is not valid. As Mathematics has the conceptualization of necessity, and the conclusion logically follows, all Mathematics is a priori. My opponent actually admits that Pure Mathematics is a priori, since fundamentally both Mathematics are the same, he concedes that Mathematics is a priori. (14.2) Actually Russell's Paradox shows that Frege's system of taking analytical numbers leads to self-refutation. I asked Marc to give me the link, or the page number, theorem number from the Principia Mathematica (by Bertrand Russell) something which he has not done. He has not given me Frege's arguments as to why he believes that this is analytic, he simply makes an appeal to authority to Frege. Also even if Mathematics is analytic, it would still be a priori, albeit it would be more intuitive now. The reason I was arguing for synthetic a priori was that it would show that Mathematics is a non-innate a priori. In any case as Frege's arguments were never mentioned, and it was never shown through Logic why Kant is wrong, Marc's point does not stand. (14.3) Firstly there was no logic behind those examples, his argument was an appeal to an example. Marc needed to provide logic which he did not. Secondly even if Marc showed that there is an analytic a posteriori, he never showed why Mathematics is analytic a posteriori. Marc made absolutely no link. (14.4) I do not understand how my arguments on Space, and Time are based on Mathematics being a priori, to be honest I think Marc is talking about how Geometry is used to evaluate Space-Time disturbances but I am guessing as Marc never showed how my arguments about Space, and Time were dependent on Mathematics. This was another point which was not evaluated properly. (14.5) I said inherently Mathematics can only be proved by intuition, there are certain theorems which are only correct intuitively, if all Mathematics is flawed then so should the Mathematics which applies to this world, as Mathematics yields correct results we can conclude that Mathematics is not flawed. Mathematics is, however, at its most fundamental level, empirically unprovable, that is only because it is a priori. Gödel's Theorem may have shown this, but had the conclusion been all Mathematics is flawed then we would not have Mathematicians today. As I gave the example of 1+1=2, to make this happen empirically we need a mental understanding of the essence of 1, and the essence of +, and only then we can conclude 2. It matters not whether we do it in English, German, or Chinese, the Idea of Essence must be a priori. I thank Marc for conceding my Mathematics argument. 15. Of Space:(15.1) Once more Marc starts by stating that the idea of Space is not true until they are empirically tested (Logical Positivism anyone?). Marc does not contest my arguments yet simply state that they go against Science, I should like very much to know how. (15.2) Once more Marc has contested (much like Pakistanii extremists) that Einstein was wrong and that Space exists as a 'physical entity'. I remind the voters we are talking about the knowledge of Space only, and the knowledge I have shown sufficiently is a priori. The truth is I do not understand Marc's contentions, they seem extremely confused to me. (15.3) Marc never mentioned this before, and brought out a new argument just now. While we need objects to apply Space to, we do not get the knowledge of Space from them. Marc concedes to my Space argument because when he states that Space is necessary (and granted only possible) when applied to a posteriori phenomenon he admits that Space exists as a foundation antecedent to experience, which was my original argument. If he states that something must be a posteriori if it can only be recognized by a posteriori means then he needs to argue this, something impossible as the two parts of the sentence are in contradiction. I thank Marc for conceding my Space argument. 16. Of Time:(16.1) While experience (a posteriori) is necessary for the activation of a priori knowledge, by saying this we basically concede that Time is a priori. For only if Time was a priori could we use Time and understand causality (change) of events. Once more there is no connexion (this is a word, albeit archaic spelling) provided and therefore we know not how Marc seems to justify this, as he does not properly justify this, this point falls in my favor. (16.2) Firstly as Marc made the proposition that Time is: a. existing as a physical entity, b. Dummet's system works; he substantiated on none of them and gave me no arguments. He tells me not what Dummet's system is, how it works but simply gives me a conclusion, I cannot believe him without proof. Einstein stated that there is no physical entity of Time (this was believed since Galileo) and he proved this later on through his Matrices. In any case the ds/dt^2 derivation teaches us, Time travles in a cyclic way according to the decisions of people. This is also shown by naive Set Theory. [1]https://einstein.stanford.edu...[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com...17. Of Empirical Knowledge:(17.1) While I agree that empirical knowledge does exist, I do contest that it is all subjective. I never said empirical knowledge does not exist, but I do contest (something made easy by the fact that Marc gave no arguments) that Sense Experience (Empirical Knowledge) is the fundamental source of all knowledge. This was what I contest, this is what Marc failed to show. (17.2) Once more, if something is X in reality, we are not concerned with it. We are concerned with Y, the knowledge of X. While X may be hot, a SEP patient will not know that (seeing how Marc bases all knowledge (and therefore reality) on sense experience this means that that water will both be hot, and not hot). The knowledge of a table being sturdy will be subjective, because sturdy itself is a subjective concept. 18. Of Truth:(18.1) I should remind the voters that Marc's claims are unsubstantiated and he never provided arguments. My analysis of Tarski's theorem, and of the content allowes me to make the Truth that which has the convention of being True. If Marc wishes to make the definition that all Truth is that which empirically shown to be true then he had to prove Logical Positivism, something he never did. This was an excellent debate, and I have a lot of fun, but remember Marc did not give positive arguments, he gave unsubstantiated claims, and made principle contradictions. I remind Marc that he can only pass or concede the debate in the next round.The resolution then collapses miserably, please vote Con. Ajab