Do you agree with Hitchens Razor?
Hitchens Razor: That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Yes.
Side Score: 81
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 49
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
I think the debate description isn't doing a good job of explaining Hitchens' razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Anyways... I generally agree with it. If a person makes a claim, they should be the ones who have to provide the proof/evidence. "Fairies are real! And until you show or give me proof/evidence of their non-existence, they are real goddammit!" @OP You already created this debate before... word for word actually... Side: Yes.
1
point
3
points
While I do concede that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, a proposition without some variety of evidence readily presented could be many things. A lie, a misunderstanding, a guess, etc. Without some semblance of evidence, it is impossible to determine which of these things it is. While one shouldn't say it is definitely false, there is, as yet, no reason to solid reason to believe it is true. And yeah, such propositions are dismissible. Side: Yes.
1
point
|
Monday always succeeds Tuesday, as well, due to the cyclic nature of weeks. It doesn't mean much. I guess what you are aiming at is that Tuesday is the day immidiately succeeding Monday. By definition, Tuesday is the day immediately succeeding Tuesday. In much the same way, that 2 is defined as 1+1. Since we are only dealing with definitions here, the proposition "Tuesday always succeeds Monday" is a analytical claim. We have to mind the context of Hitchens Razor. Hitchen used his Razor as a rational argument against theism; more positively, it's used as an argument in favor of atheism. I.e. the Razor is used to argue that 'the existence of God can be dismissed without proof'. But notice that the key proposition in play here isn't analytical. To ask whether God exists is a synthetic claim. What you said might have shown that Hitchen's Razor is foolish somehow in relation to analytical propositions, but for the sake of the context, I think it needs to argued that Hitchen's Razor is also wrong in relation to synthetic claims. For instance, "Tuesdays are always more rainy than Mondays" is a synthetic claim. If I claimed such a thing without proof, wouldn't you be well within your right to dismiss it without proof? Side: Yes.
3
points
You're missing the point, your rebuttal is only true in the sense that the metric and imperial systems are "artificial" (man-made), which is irrelevant. The relationships that ideas (such as time and ways of measuring time) happen to have with each other does not affect the synthetic. See Hume's Fork Side: Yes.
The proof is in the statement itself. Monday is the day before Tuesday. That is already known. Providing evidence for that is useless asit is already there. A statement that requires proof would be like "Iceland is home to Elephants". That statement can be pressed for evidence and dismissed if I fail to provide the evidence. Side: Yes.
2
points
Just because no one wants to dismiss it doesn't mean it isn't reasonable to dismiss it. You are relying on people to put forth the effort to dismiss it rather than determining if the statement is easily dismissable. Your statement is as it stands worthless. There is no reason to believe Tuesday follows Monday just because you said so. Side: Yes.
this lack of evidence wouldn't be grounds to refute the assertion It may not be grounds to refute the truth of the claim, but certainly the assertion of it. It is only rational in debate to refute the assertion of a claim where evidence is required yet not provided. merely to take the position of being unconvinced not merely. its understandably so. Without being given a usable reason to believe the assertion, one ought to remain unconvinced. One ought to remain unconvinced despite pseudo-reasoning as well, yet we have theists… Side: Yes.
A rational response to the bare bones claim that: "there is a god", is not to refute it in kind with a bare bones denial, or refutation. An appropriate and rational response would be "Why do you believe there is a god?". To respond according to "Hitchen's Razor", with something like: "No there isn't" is just childish IMO. not merely. its understandably so. The point is that being unconvinced of the truth of a statement in no way prepares one to reasonably refute it. Without being given a usable reason to believe the assertion, one ought to remain unconvinced. Granted. Unsupported assertions can be reasonably dismissed, but not reasonably refuted. One ought to remain unconvinced despite pseudo-reasoning as well, yet we have theists… Even the most careful reasoning rests on unsupported assumptions, yet we have atheists who naively think that simply by denying the existence of god, they somehow rise above what the rest of us are still held back by. Side: Yes.
1
point
I have much respect for Hitchens he was a great polemist, he greatly enhanced the debate community. A truth is not an untrue just because we lack understanding of it. The claim that a truth can be disproved without proof is false. Many truths are claimed without proof. For example, if I say there are no purple with yellow polka dot elephants does not mean that I have proof of that. If you say there are no one believes it. The most accurate of all sciences, is the science of math which is based on axioms and theorems. The field of science outside of math has a higher chance of error as we use more of our powers of perception and ability to interpret meanings. This should not stop our quest for truth. Many philosopher's wrote aphorisms based on truth, without proof they are based on axioms and maxims. Yet there purpose in making these statements was not to end an argument as absolute, but to get the reader thinking critically about whether the statement is true. Can someone discredit such statement as there is a God without proof yes, but will they be accepted creditably maybe if you are Hitchens. Usually a person of authority can change the communities values, but the bible itself is sought out for its simple truths of proverbs and aphorisms from Jesus Christ. Each person has an individual choice to make what to believe science itself, or logic and reasoning can't solve every problem or choice we have to hope for the best. Side: No.
-2
points
5
points
The burden of proof lays in the hands of the person that doubts it to be true. So...anybody can say any old thing, ANY THING at all, and we just have to accept it as true if we can't automatically disprove it. That is idiocy. If this is not the case then everything must be false as with the pre-mentioned Monday/Tuesday example. Considering that the example forgets the fact that both calenders and dictionaries can prove it accurate, this example is poor in the contexts of this debate. Side: Yes.
0
points
So...anybody can say any old thing, ANY THING at all, and we just have to accept it as true if we can't automatically disprove it. That is idiocy. People do and say anything. You do accept it as true. Have you seen your doctors diploma/the dentist's degree or do you just accept them as legit because they hung a shingle out front. Every day you accept many things as the truth without any proof. Do you just selectively choose that which you wish to be false? If it is the mainstream, then it must be true. Talk about blind faith. Side: No.
The burden of proof lays in the hands of the person that doubts it to be true. They must find evidence to the contrary of your statement. If this is not the case then everything must be false as with the pre-mentioned Monday/Tuesday example With your logic I can say that you re Muslim gay rapist that eats kids alive and it is true until you disprove it... Side: Yes.
1
point
2
points
1
point
|
