CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:24
Arguments:42
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Can you prove that you're not a fish? (24)

Debate Creator

Elvira(3447) pic



Can you prove that you're not a fish?

Seriously?

Add New Argument
1 point

No, not really.

soy un pez

Unless we are to posit the existence of a negative fish to compensate a positive fish, then no I cannot.

Pharmacy(213) Clarified
1 point

Please explain. I have heard this logic before, but do not fully grasp it. Is it related to mathematics? Where can I find out more about this type of reasoning and logic? What is it called?

ChuckHades(3198) Clarified
1 point

It goes as follows.

To prove that something has a certain property, there must be a metaphysical point of reference by which we can prove that that thing has a certain property. For example, if you and I were in a room together, I could prove that you were wearing a shirt (hopefully) by referring to the shirt on your body. You could prove that I had brown hair by referencing my brown hair.

But how do we prove that something does not have a certain property? What metaphysical point of reference can be used to prove the absence of a property? In the debate question, what can we plausibly use to prove that we're not fish? We could send the OP a picture of ourselves. But how does the OP know that we're truly fish, and not just hiding our fish forms in the veil of human disguise? It sounds ludicrous, and indeed it is ludicrous to believe that we are fish, yet we cannot prove we are not. What this means is that everything we take as truth in our life is not actually proven, and our whole life could be a lie.

This is a problem that is addressed in the idea of negative objects. The metaphysical point of reference that proves X is true is positive. The metaphysical point of reference that proves X is not true is negative. This means that for every positive fish (or regular fish), there is a negative fish to compensate its existence. Indeed for every object, the theory states that it has a hypothetical negative counterpart to compensate its existence.

The main contention with this idea is that how can an object be used to prove nothingness? Isn't that contradictory? I disagree with this contention on a mathematical level. Think of objects as a number line, they can be positive or negative. Even in physics, this is true, where we have positive and negative energy. So instead of suggesting that a negative object is nothing, I would suggest that said negative object is truly and mathematically negative, allowing it to exist.

Of course I disagree with the whole negative objects theory anyway, seeing as I don't feel it necessary to prove negatives, but it is an interesting topic. I don't know the name of the reasoning, though I suppose it would be a form of anti-realism. Ludwig Wittgenstein did some work on this, so that may be worth a look if you want to know more.

1 point

I don't believe I have gills...

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

How do I know? Proof?

1 point

I can't breathe underwater.

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

...and can you prove that?

Srom(12201) Disputed
1 point

Yes because I would be able to breath through my nose in the water but if I sniff water it will shoot through my nostrils and into my lungs which isn't a good place to get water in because you can get pneumonia

A fish has no fingers

I used my fingers to type this argument

Conculson: i am not a fish.

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

But you could be controlling a machine that types for you.

1 point

If you define fish as most every person does, then yes. Human beings do not fit the same criteria that makes a thing a fish.

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

That does not prove that YOU are not a fish.

dkforizzle(175) Clarified
1 point

Empirically speaking, I am not a fish. ..................................................................................

1 point

I've never had the urge to eat a worm on a hook.

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

You could still be a fish.

NO .

I no gills

NO tail and fins

Can swim backstroke

I cannot breathe underwater .

I don't breathe in dissolved oxygen

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

And can you prove all of these things?

jonathangoh(1720) Clarified
1 point

Yes

jonathangoh(1720) Clarified
1 point

I don't believe a fish can have fingers to type into the keyboard

1 point

No gills, dont breathe dissolved oxygen, can swim backstroke, no fins, gills or whatsoever

Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

And none of this PROVES that you're not a fish- beacause you have presented no proof for these.

1 point

I can type ¬_¬, No gills, I'm above water and not dead, I can't breath under water.

I can't swim. :) ...I would be a bad fish :D __________________________________________________

1 point

I dont have scales. I dont have fins. I dont have gills. I breathe through my nose. I have big ears. And i look completely HUMAN.

Nope. Therefore, I am a fish, definitely a fish, and no other explanation is valid. < Theist logic.

1 point

i don't know how to swim :).................................................................

1 point

Well, I drink like a fish... so, no, no I can't.

YES, EASY.

Fish have two distinct characteristics that we don't.

ONE...Gills

TWO...Tail

no, you cant prove anything, how do we know were not all like.... in a fish dream or something