CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:157
Arguments:170
Total Votes:164
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why expect the Sun to rise tomorrow? (138)

Debate Creator

Jody(1365) pic



Why expect the Sun to rise tomorrow?

Every morning we expect the Sun to rise over the horizon is our expectation irrational?
Add New Argument
2 points

Well, insofar that ''tomorrow never comes'' we've no way of knowing for sure.

Yesterday's tomorrow has arrived, but the question remains, '''why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

Amarel(5000) Banned
1 point

All evidence indicates that it will. There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. Doubting that the sun will rise without any evidential reason is irrational.

On the other hand, you could find yourself with some evidence. If you are in a very fast jet, you could see the sun rise in the West, or delay the sunrise itself.

Jody(1365) Clarified
1 point

All evidence indicates that it will.

We have no more reason to suppose that it will rise than we have to suppose it won’t

There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t.

There is no Evidence it will

Doubting that the sun will rise without any evidential reason is irrational.

It’s actually as rational as your position and possibly more so as your position is presumptive and is based on induction making your argument circular , in effect you’re claiming induction has worked in up to now , and therefore will continue to do so.

What we have observed so far gives no guarantee as to what will happen in the future

On the other hand, you could find yourself with some evidence. If you are in a very fast jet, you could see the sun rise in the West, or delay the sunrise itself.

Again that’s based on what’s happened in the past and is speculative regarding future events

Amarel(5000) Clarified Banned
1 point

We have no more reason to suppose that it will rise than we have to suppose it won’t

Except for all the evidence.

There is no Evidence it will

Only if you’re a new born baby. If your a reasonably educated adult, you have all the evidence of your senses observing repeated iterations with a consistency of 100% and a thorough explanation for this consistency rooted in our oldest theories of physics and re-affirmed in all newer theories of physics.

It’s actually as rational as your position

Only to a new born baby.

What we have observed so far gives no guarantee as to what will happen in the future

No, not a guarantee. But the notion that inductive reasoning is not thoroughly rational is a baseless notion. To pretend that absolute skepticism is more reasonable than rational induction, is to pretend that, for example, walking in front of fast moving traffic is more rational than waiting for the crosswalk signal. It’s not. Only the ignorance of extreme youth can reasonably believe otherwise, which is why we hold a child’s hand when they cross the street.

0 points

All evidence indicates that it will.

There is no evidence to suggest that it will. You are making a very common mistake (among imbeciles) in assuming the natural world to have a memory. It doesn't know what happened yesterday and it doesn't care. If a large enough comet or asteroid impacted the Earth (say from the direction of the Sun, meaning it would go undetected until it was too late) it would create dust clouds which would obscure the Sun and potentially (in a worst case scenario) knock the Earth out of orbit.

Amarel(5000) Clarified Banned
1 point

Right. There’s no guarantee sun will rise, but all the evidence indicates it will, making it the most reasonable induction. Unless you’re a new born baby or have the mind of one. So you’re in the clear big guy. Run along now, and don’t cross the street alone.

Why expect the Sun to rise tomorrow?

People at the North pole don't expect it to rise tomorrow. Just sayin.

1 point

Every morning? The Sun rises over the horizon every hour. When it doesn't, we shouldn't (won't), be expecting ANYTHING.

1 point

Daft question. For one, the sun doesn't "rise". The Earth rotates which causes sunlight to hit different parts of the Earth, hence day and night. Secondly, there are no asteroids/exoplanets/quasars/black holes/neutron stars etc. within a proximity that would cause the Earth or the sun to be destroyed or knocked out of stable orbit or caused to in any way effect the natural day/night cycle for at least the next 24 hours (more reasonably the next 100 years or more): we have satellites, telescopes and a variety of probes that confirm this as fact.

Therefore: the sun will "rise" tomorrow.

No need for sophistic pseudo-intellectual "philosophical" bullshit on this one.

Jody(1365) Disputed
2 points

Daft question.

Most amusing considering this come from one of the daftest fucks on C D

For one, the sun doesn't "rise".

Most rational beings use such descriptive language to describe the phenomenon , undoubtedly being the pedantic bore you are you deliver a lecture instead of using a simple term understood by all

The Earth rotates which causes sunlight to hit different parts of the Earth, hence day and night. Secondly, there are no asteroids/exoplanets/quasars/black holes/neutron stars etc. within a proximity that would cause the Earth or the sun to be destroyed or knocked out of stable orbit or caused to in any way effect the natural day/night cycle for at least the next 24 hours (more reasonably the next 100 years or more): we have satellites, telescopes and a variety of probes that confirm this as fact.

Therefore: the sun will "rise" tomorrow.

Christ you're a bore and your postion is totally irrational, the man who knows the future

No need for sophistic pseudo-intellectual "philosophical" bullshit on this one.

Yes best stick with you psychic "gifts" as it allows you asset certainty for future events

seanB(720) Disputed
2 points

You don't need to be psychic to understand simple physics. The Earth will continue rotating around the sun tomorrow because there's nothing near us that would cause it to do otherwise.

Very simple. Very provable. Entirely correct.

It's much easier to predict events at cosmic scales than at mundane ones. Effectively, we DO know SOME of the future of the solar system, because spacial dynamics take far more time and cover much vaster distances than the minutiae of human everyday life. We can predict with almost perfect accuracy that the Earth will remain in its current orbit for x years undisturbed, because we have evidence.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that the sun will rise tomorrow.

But please, continue refuting scientific evidence with insults. It makes you look well intelligent.

1 point

Secondly, there are no asteroids/exoplanets/quasars/black holes/neutron stars etc. within a proximity that would cause the Earth or the sun to be destroyed or knocked out of stable orbit

I remember the captain of the Titanic making similar claims.

seanB(720) Disputed
1 point

Are astrophysicists and planetary scientists, the various high powered telescopes and the litany of space-maps and asteroid trackers we have, comparable to the captain of the Titanic taking sight-readings from a half drunk young sailor with a bad telescope?

We know for certain there is nothing in our vicinity that would impact us enough in 24 hours for the entire rotation and orbit of the Earth to be broken. It's not a conjecture. It's a fact.

outlaw60(15262) Disputed
1 point

The LEFTIST IDIOT typed this - For one, the sun doesn't "rise".

Then why is it the SUN comes up in the EAST and sets in the WEST you IDIOT BASTARD?

1 point

Then why is it the SUN comes up in the EAST and sets in the WEST you IDIOT BASTARD?

Because the planet rotates. Are you actually serious that you didn't know that?

seanB(720) Disputed
1 point

Clearly you don't understand solar orbits. The sun appears to rise due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis. It doesn't actually rise.

Amarel(5000) Banned
1 point

1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise.

I’m done going into detailed examples and explanations of the above counters to your position only to have them ignored while you pretend at victory. Address them coward.

Amarel(5000) Banned
1 point

1. Time is not independent.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises.

0 points

The certainty of this Divine marvel of the Heavens is described in Ecclesiastes 1.5-11.

THE SUN ALSO RISES.

If it's scientific reassurance you want then check out the Ernest Hemingway novel of the same name.

The Bull Run in Pamplona doesn't start until July 7th and continues through to the 14th of July, so it's going to keep rising at until the end of this event.

1 point

THE SUN ALSO RISES.

Until the day it doesn't. It's a pity the Bible didn't teach you about time or entropy. Maybe you'd be less of a halfwit.

Amarel(5000) Banned
0 points

The supposed problem of induction arises out of an error of perspective. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable. We are living in the future constantly. Our experience of the present is always the actualization of the future and is simultaneously the future’s past.

To say we cannot know anything about the future is no more valid than to say we cannot know anything about the past, as the past is always in reference to the future that we can supposedly know nothing about.

But of course, we can know things about the past, we have significant experience with it. And we can know things about the future, as every past is the future of an earlier past. Thus we have significant experience with the future as well. In fact, we have just as much experience with the future as with the past, both are the present, and neither are the present depending on perspective.

This error of perspective is similar to claiming that a road leading uphill cannot simultaneously lead downhill, as that is a contradiction. But the road does both.

I dislike and discount arguments that challenge that which is axiomatic. The problem of induction is one such challenge as inductive reasoning is fundamental. Induction is itself a tool of reason. To rule out induction as a means to validate induction, is to rule out a tool of reason as a valid tool of reason. This is necessarily unreasonable.

If you maintain that the circular nature of induction validation necessarily invalidates it, you may also consider the validation of reason itself. One can not prove the validity of reason or of it’s parts (logic, induction, etc). These are axiomatic.

You can not validate the tools of validation without using the tools of validation. This fact doesn’t invalidate the tools, it invalidates the challenge.

This is why accepting the notion that induction is invalid necessarily leads to absurdities such as those demonstrated in my previous examples. It is absurd to think firing a gun at one’s head is equally likely to have any number of consequences. If you find yourself believing that absurdities hold equal rationality, it may be caused by you belief in the invalidation of the very tools of rationality.

2 points

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable.

LOL.

There's an extremely good reason. It's called cause and effect. You can't obtain information about an effect before the cause has even occurred.

Fuck off Amarel. Your pseudo-scientific gibberish is getting on my nerves. You're a fucking narcissistic moron who needs 10,000 words just to get to the point.

Amarel(5000) Clarified Banned
1 point

You can't obtain information about an effect before the cause has even occurred.

First, cause and effect is the reason for predictability.

Second, according to your bullshit, none of your claims have any validity beyond the moment you say them. As if they ever did.

Jody(1365) Clarified
1 point

The supposed problem of induction arises out of an error of perspective.

That’s inaccurate, induction relies on a generalization based on a specific number of observations

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable. We are living in the future constantly. Our experience of the present is always the actualization of the future and is simultaneously the future’s past.

But that’s mere speculation how can the unknown be known?

To say we cannot know anything about the future is no more valid than to say we cannot know anything about the past, as the past is always in reference to the future that we can supposedly know nothing about.

That’s not true the past is a known the future is unknown as yet

But of course, we can know things about the past, we have significant experience with it. And we can know things about the future, as every past is the future of an earlier past. Thus we have significant experience with the future as well. In fact, we have just as much experience with the future as with the past, both are the present, and neither are the present depending on perspective.

What things can you know with perfect accuracy regards the future?

This error of perspective is similar to claiming that a road leading uphill cannot simultaneously lead downhill, as that is a contradiction. But the road does both.

The only one making errors of perspective is you

I dislike and discount arguments that challenge that which is axiomatic. The problem of induction is one such challenge as inductive reasoning is fundamental. Induction is itself a tool of reason. To rule out induction as a means to validate induction, is to rule out a tool of reason as a valid tool of reason. This is necessarily unreasonable.

Again you totally miss the point as inductive arguments with true premises may or may not be true , deductive arguments are truth preserving as in if their premises are true then their conclusions must be true , you have no grounds for your position

If you maintain that the circular nature of induction validation necessarily invalidates it, you may also consider the validation of reason itself. One can not prove the validity of reason or of it’s parts (logic, induction, etc). These are axiomatic.

You can not validate the tools of validation without using the tools of validation. This fact doesn’t invalidate the tools, it invalidates the challenge.

This is why accepting the notion that induction is invalid necessarily leads to absurdities such as those demonstrated in my previous examples. It is absurd to think firing a gun at one’s head is equally likely to have any number of consequences. If you find yourself believing that absurdities hold equal rationality, it may be caused by you belief in the invalidation of the very tools of rationality.

My position is still sound although one relies on induction and the claim could be made chaos would reign otherwise you still cannot demonstrate why the original statement regarding the sun rising is irrational until you do so your merely repeating yourself.

Regarding pure logic valid mathematical proofs are not circular because they do not assume the conclusion in the proof

Amarel(5000) Clarified Banned
1 point

That’s inaccurate, induction relies on a generalization based on a specific number of observations

The idea that there is an induction problem at all arises from the error of perspective, as I go on to explain.

But that’s mere speculation how can the unknown be known?

Things are often not strictly known or unknown. Knowing the game of rugby won’t tell you the outcome of the game, but it will give you insight into the manner in which the game will proceed. You have experience with rugby. You also have experience with the future, as I explain.

That’s not true the past is a known the future is unknown as yet

Neither the future nor the past is entirely known nor entirely unknown. But for their to even be a past there must be a reference future, which you actualize in the present.

What things can you know with perfect accuracy regards the future?

Your call for perfect accuracy is the straw-man I previously identified. We can’t know the past, present, or future with perfect accuracy. But this fact doesn’t create a problem for induction.

The only one making errors of perspective is you

A baseless assertion coming from one who hasn’t demonstrated an understanding of what you’re responding to. But it probably feels good to say.

Can a road lead uphill and downhill at the same time?

Again you totally miss the point as inductive arguments with true premises may or may not be true , deductive arguments are truth preyserving as in if their premises are true then their conclusions must be true , you have no grounds for your position

This response is ignoring the section it is supposedly responding to.

Deductive reasoning takes general premises and applies them to specifics. But all general premises concerning real things are the result of inductive reasoning. When you say “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal”, you have to first induce from your experience that all men are mortal.

The syllogism worked perfectly well for white swans once upon a time. “All swans are white, there’s a swan at the lake, that swan is white.” The first premise came from experience with many individual swans being white. But then it turned out that some swans are black.

Thus, deductive reasoning is necessarily subject to the same errors as inductive reasoning given deductive reasoning relies on premises derived from inductive reasoning. Follow?

My position is still sound although one relies on induction and the claim could be made chaos would reign otherwise you still cannot demonstrate why the original statement regarding the sun rising is irrational until you do so your merely repeating yourself.

I’m not repeating myself, and your ignoring much of what I’m saying.

Your position is no less and no more sound than the position that logic is invalid because it cannot itself be proved sound. While it is true that logic cannot be proved sound (since proof makes it circular), the challenge itself is irrational and any supposition resulting from such a challenge is absurd. Much like the sunrise scenario.