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

I apologize for the late reply, you see I wanted to be sure of my seat in the whiteflame loss rehab clinic before engaging you. I shall give some of my arguments now, others in the next rounds, though I will not give any new argument in the last round. As per the rules this will be a positive case only round. 1. Of Mathematics:(1.1) I shall attempt to show that all mathematics is synthetic a priori, which means that mathematics is purely theoretical and is not self-contradictory to deny. By showing that it is theoretical I will have shown that a fundamental source of knowledge, and one of the most important is purely theoretical. I ask that the voters read up on synthetic and analytic statements before they read this part. (1.2) Mathematical judgements then are necessarily synthetic, for while the principles that they follow may follow the law of contradiction, such is the case of all apodeictic systems, the judgements themselves are synthetic. While 7+5=12 is contradictory to deny the concept of twelve is not individually present in the concept of seven. Unlike the statement: "all bodies are extended" where by body we understand that space is covered, in no way does the concept of 7 lead us to the concept of 12. Only when we attack 7 to 5 do we recieve 12. It is then shown that Mathematics is synthetic. This is important because my opponent may argue that there are many analytic truths, and such they do not fill the criterion of significant knowledge. By showing that Mathematics is synthetic a priori I will have shown a major part of human knowledge to be: a. theoretical, b. not guarenteed by analysis. (1.3) Let us now move forward to show that Mathematics is indeed a priori. We shall do this by first of all stating that Mathematics has a necessity to it which is not to be found in empirical knowledge. By this conceptualization of necessity I mean that Mathematics, like all formal systems, lead to the exact same conclusions. While to say that: "this room is large" bases itself on empirical knowledge, largeness here is subjective. The absoluteness of 7+5=12 is unanimous for all, therefore it directly follows that Mathematics has an absoluteness of the concept of necessity which is lacking in empirical knowledge. By necessity, I should clarify, I mean that it could not exist otherwise. In all forms of cognition 7+5=12. Thus we have demonstrated that Mathematics is a priori. (1.4) The second proof that we shall come across is that by example. While this does not stand in itself as a proof it helps elucidate the point we have made earlier: that of the absolutenes of the conceptualization of necessity. Let us take a purely algebric equation: x^2+3x-4=0. We should, fundamentally reach the conclusion of x=1, or x=-4. We have reached these answers purely by theory, for in such an algebric case there is no empirical date we could rest this on. While this Mathematical Equation's result may be tested empirically the equation itself, the process of reaching these judgements was purely a priori. (1.5) It is then clear that Mathematical decisions are firstly a priori, which means they are not empirical and align themselves with the rationalistic approach I am to take, secondly that these decisions are substantive as they are not analytic so that the mind could simply deduce them easily from empirical knowledge, but are synthetic and require the building of synthetic axioms. Unlike the knowledge of a body occupying space which can be deduced analytically through the knowledge of there being a body, Mathematical judgements are much harder. It is intriguing that we have mentioned Space, for our next object is to show that, not the deduction of space, but the very Idea of Space is a priori. In essence we are to show that all our knowledge bases itself on a priori, rationalistic knowledge. 2. Of Space:(2.1) Human cognition represents to itself objects, to which it attributes certain dimensions, and relations. This quality of possessing such dimensions has hitherto been known as Space. It is our wish then to show that these objects which are given this quality, are done so because of an external sense. It is then out duty to postualte that Space could not have been gauged by the senses and if we can show this, seeing how essential Space is to the understanding and collection of empirical knowledge we will have shown that at the base of the pillars of empiricism, lie purely theoretical postulates, one such being Space. (2.2) Space then must exist as a foundation a priori for in order for me to recieve certain sensations from external objects, or them from me Space must exist as a foundation. For I could not be represented to them, nor them to I had the idea of Space not been inherent. Consequently then the knowledge of space could not be gained from the experience of external phenomenon, rather on the contrary this external experience is only made possible, the cognition can only address it if the said foundation of Space is antecedent to experience. I believe the point is made rather clearly, in simpler words I mean to state that the knowledge of Space could not be borrowed from experience for experience has the condition of having the knowledge of Space as a foundation a priori. This is made quite clear by the fact that while we can imagine Space devout of an object, our cognition falls into dogma when it practices to imagine a phenomenon where an object does not possess Space. (2.3) Space must also then be a priori for we cannot imagine the concept of pure Space, rather we can only take it as a quality certain objects possess. A coin may possess Space, as may a chair or a lamp however the idea of Space as a seperate entity alludes us, and it would not be so had space been a concept a posteriori. For the general concept of Space, had it been taken from experience would be subject to the scrutiny of human cognition, but this is not so, for we cannot imagine Space lest we imagine an object which possess Space. It is also then that we have possess only one Idea of Space, which would not be so if we have gauged it from experience. While to different objects we give the different variations of Space it is clear that these are only the make ups from the original conception of Space. Whether we view a tiny object, or a large one, even though both objects possess different Space and therefore should be a posteriori we know that they are only parts of the all encompassing original Idea of Space for we can apply this Idea of Space to concepts purely unknown. It then follows that Space must be purely a priori. For from our above premise it directly follows that our Idea of Space may be taken to infinity, where an infinity amount of objects may be studied, each varying, through the same conception of Space, something impossible if Space were a posteriori. For if such a case would have occured then it is simple enough to assume that a different view of Space would be taken for different quantities, and in no way could one Idea of Space be applied so apportionately to all other phenomenon, and an infinite number of representations would be impossible. Therefore it is quite clear that Space is an intuition a priori. 3. Of Time:(3.1) At the heart of cognition lies the Idea of Time, its importance cannot be underestimated. I should make it clear that we are not trying to assert on the actual nature of Time anything, but rather how it appears in our cognition. It is clear that causality is linked to Time and without the knowledge of Time all other knowledge becomes impossible. Time then is the second pillar which, in its own nature is purely a priori, but without which all a posteriori knowledge becomes meaningless. It is then our desire to demonstrate that Time is a concept a priori.(3.2) We may, as it were, use the logic we did for understanding Space in understand Time as a knowledge a priori. Following that we then may say that Time must exist a priori for neither pre-existence, nor co-existence, nor succession would be percieved by us, had Time not existed as a foundation a priori. We understand that from the very phenomenon of causality that we would have percieved Time, those phenomenon's entrance into cognition rests solely on Time. Therefore the experience of causality does not lend us the Idea of Time but rather only possessing the Idea of Time allows us to understand causality. We then again understand which we can imagine a lack of Time where we imagine a lack of causal phenomenon, we cannot demonstrate to ourselves our knowledge of Time. Our knowledge of Time is only then demonstrated when we demonstrate a causal phenomenon. It therefore follows that Time exists purely a priori. It is noteworthy to add here that the original phenomenon may not be causal, however we percieve it to be causal. It is clear that our minds cannot picture that with defies causality, another proof that Time exists a priori. It is because of its existence a priori that Quantum Physics is difficult to comprehend. (3.3) To end we then reiterate that our one Idea of Time encompasses all and we can apply this general Idea to an infinite amount of phenomenon as well as to different representations, while these different representations are only small parts of the aggragate Idea of Time, therefore once more affirming that Time exists a priori. I should have liked to talk about Logic, the falsifiability of a priori knowledge, and the inherent weakness of Logical Positivism but as it is clear that I have run out of room I shall do so in the following rounds following my rebuttals. The above themselves however win me the debate for I have shown that a. a major part of knowledge is a priori, and b. that at the heart of all a posteriori knowledge lies purely theoretical a priori knowledge. By doing that I have even exceeded my burden by showing that all a posteriori knowledge is dependent and therefore a slave to a priori knowledge. My opponent must tackle this. Ajab