Appeal: evidence
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #163855:52upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… if you read Quine's paper, two dogmas of empiricism, one of the points that he makes as an empiricist himself is to critique the point that you're making…”
Diogenes: Jay cites a specific, checkable source from within Ryan's own tradition rather than asserting the charge of dogmatism on his own authority.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has argued since the opening that naturalist/empiricist epistemology is self-refuting and dogmatic in its own right; citing Quine's internal critique of empiricism is a direct, accurate application of that standing argument, not a new or inconsistent move. The verifier confirms Quine's paper actually makes the point Jay attributes to it — that empirical posits like natural law have the same unverified epistemic footing as metaphysical/religious posits — which is precisely Jay's standing thesis that empiricism cannot ground its own foundational principles. This is a genuine citation of a specific, checkable source distinguishing claim from evidence, not a bare assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than simply reasserting his claim, Jay points to a specific, checkable philosophical source (Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism") and states what point it makes to back his contention that an empiricist's belief in meaningful natural laws carries the same unjustified status he attributes to metaphysical claims, distinguishing his claim from evidence for it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's opening thesis is that empiricist/naturalist foundations are unjustified and self-refuting even on their own terms; citing Quine to show an empiricist himself concedes that natural-law posits have no privileged epistemic footing over metaphysical posits is a direct extension of that same line, not a departure. The verifier confirms the Quine citation accurately bears the claim Jay uses it for, distinguishing claim from checkable source exactly as "evidence" requires.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.