Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
ChristianApologia
Con (against)
The Contender
PressF4Respect
Pro (for)

Can only empirically verified claims be true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ChristianApologia has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 341 times Debate No: 122552
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

ChristianApologia

Con

Some skeptics assert that we should only base our beliefs on, "something that can be proven by true knowledge". But the problem with that statement, "you should only believe something that can be proven by true knowledge" can't be proven as true knowledge. The whole thing is self-defeating.

This is called verificationism, Which are statements that can only be empirically verifiable, Or truths of logic. Interestingly, Verificationism, Is a non-empirically verifiable proposition. It fails to meet its own standard because it is in fact, An example of the very thing it was designed to guard against (metaphysical).

The verification principle says, "a factual statement is meaningful if it can be empirically (indirectly or directly) verified by empirical observations". But there are no observations we can make that would verify it so either the principle is meaningless or it is an arbitrary assumption. The verification principle does not self-verify itself, If a skeptic claims it does, Then he/she needs to justify/validate that claim.

Another example, "it's true by definition, Or you can prove it with one of your five sense. " The problem with that statement is that it isn't true by definition nor can you prove it with one of your five senses. Therefore, It is a self-defeating philosophy.

Let's have a discussion!
PressF4Respect

Pro

I accept your challenge, And will be arguing that the only claims that can be considered true are those that have been proven so (the definition of an empirically verified claim). The burden of proof will fall to both sides, And all sources must be cited. All the rules of the terms of service will apply. I look forward to the debate, And wish you good luck.

F
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianApologia

Con

The verification principle says a statement only has meaning (one would have to show that "meaning" is not arbitrary) only if it is validated by observable conditions to determine its truth or falseness. A metaphysical statement (unobservant or unable to empirically verify a verbal statement) cannot be empirically verified. Its merely assumed (rationally and sometimes logically, Depending on the motives of the individual). Claiming that only empirically verified claims should be believed as "true" is a self-defeating position because that very statement is a non-empirically verifiable proposition.

Sources: https://www. Philosophybasics. Com/branch_verificationism. Html and https://www. Britannica. Com/topic/verifiability-principle
PressF4Respect

Pro

I can't post my argument here, So I'll send a link to it:

https:// docs. Google. Com/ document/ d/ 1oy9aIY4lEYB188FH30OCpDM8S3sAYTOZuxZ5z-U55CA /edit
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by PressF4Respect 2 years ago
PressF4Respect
For some reason everytime I submit my argument the counter resets, But it does not post my argument. This is ridiculous.
Posted by Lynx_N 2 years ago
Lynx_N
Try posting only ambiguous characters and words here to sieve out what causes the automated censor nazi scripts to undo your post, Such as colons, Links to websites, Quotes using date and timestamp, Those kind of things.
It doesn't matter what or how much you post in here, As long as it comes out OK in the debate.
Posted by PressF4Respect 2 years ago
PressF4Respect
I have sent a copy of my response to the pro. Unfortunately, It might count as a forfeit because this stupid website won't load my response onto database. Tried posting it here, But it failed too.
Posted by Lynx_N 2 years ago
Lynx_N
Notepad is my friend.
Learned it the hard way here from early on.
Posted by PressF4Respect 2 years ago
PressF4Respect
@Lynx_N Well that's dumb. The servers don't upload my response because they can't handle hyperlinks. Anyways I'll try to remember what I wrote (to the best of my abilities).
Posted by Lynx_N 2 years ago
Lynx_N
Try doctoring links to sources, The forum software no longer accepts links to websites, Etc.
These worked for your opponent, Using spaces after every dot.
https://www. Philosophybasics. Com/branch_verificationism. Html and https://www. Britannica. Com/topic/verifiability-principle
Posted by PressF4Respect 2 years ago
PressF4Respect
I also lost my argument when I accidentally pressed Cmd + C instead of Cmd + V when trying to paste it.
Posted by PressF4Respect 2 years ago
PressF4Respect
For some strange reason the server is not allowing me to post my response. Every time I submit it, It does not show on the main debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.