if emotions can't be proven then it means that they are not real
yes
Side Score: 10
|
 |
no
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
2
points
We do not yet have a fully accepted theory to explain gravity, but we observe its effects and we know it is real. The effects of emotions can be observed both externally and internally. Progress is being made in understanding the chemical reactions behind emotions. But even without knowledge of the chemical process, we would know emotions to be a real phenomenon. It's a given condition of the general human experience. Side: no
I half agree with you. I agree that if something is said to exist it must have been observed in some way, how else could it have been verified to have existed. But is observation a necessity of existence? I don't think so. To observe something is a subjective reality and has no bearing on the actual objective reality. Items can exist in objective reality without being observed. A new species of fish has just been discovered. Had the schools appeared out of nowhere once observed or had they always been there? If the fisherman who discovered them had looked out the left side of the boat instead of the right and not seen the fish would the fish not exist in objective reality? Well not being able to prove X just means you cannot prove X. To prove X is not real you would need to prove X is not real, but how do you do that with a negative or something that can't be proven? You almost never have to and can be a long discussion...so best to skip it for now. But here is the issue with the above debate: This question is really just shifting the onus. "IF X can't be proven THEN X are not real" is the original question.
There is a teapot circling the earth. Prove to me there isn't one. If you cannot prove to me that there isn't a teapot circling the earth does that mean there is one? X(a teapot does not circle the earth)+ ? = Not X. This is an example of a Negative Proof fallacy or burden of proof fallacy. It really should look like this : X + ? = ? Side: no
|
1
point
2
points
1
point
Unless I'm an anomaly and everybody else is faking emotions, even in the absence of proof we all know that they're real. If I understand correctly, I don't believe that the existence of emotion is questioned at all, anywhere. Emotion is the name we give to a group of subjective phenomena (with individual names for each), wherein we have a general consensus as to their qualitative experiential natures. It is the physical nature, the quantitative nature, and the actual mechanism of these phenomena that are questioned. Even if the fundamental nature of them differs significantly from what we currently believe, these phenomena aren't named/classified by their fundamental nature, but rather by their qualitative experiential nature, which isn't likely to change in the case of better understanding of the mechanics involved. Side: no
1
point
|
