Appeal: evidence
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16581:33:25upheld Fr. Ananias epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Fr. Ananias earned 1 point.
“… you'll see this in Klein and Duhaime [Quine and Duhem] and and a lot of these people in the philosophy of science were able to demonstrate that you can have multiple contradicting scientific paradigms that all work perfectly well.”
Diogenes: Father Deacon names a specific, checkable result — the underdetermination of theory by data — and draws the exact consequence it has for Ryan's claim that working is evidence of truth.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias has consistently argued, since his first intervention challenging Ryan's "subjectivity means no progress" position, from named philosophy-of-science literature (Kuhn, Quine, Duhem) to press specific, checkable consequences against Ryan's pragmatist justification; this line continues that same method rather than departing from it. The verifier confirms the Duhem-Quine underdetermination thesis is real and correctly applied: Fr. Ananias states the content of the result (rival theories can be empirically equivalent) and draws its exact consequence for Ryan's "it works, therefore probably true" move, which is citing something checkable rather than merely invoking a name to substitute for argument — the garbled pronunciation doesn't change that the substance is accurately deployed.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Fr. Ananias cites a specific, checkable position in the philosophy of science (the Quine-Duhem underdetermination thesis) to substantiate his claim that empirical "working" does not settle truth, since rival, contradictory paradigms can each be empirically adequate. This moves the exchange from bare assertion to a citable finding, and directly undercuts Ryan's repeated "it works, so it probably matches reality" move rather than merely restating disagreement.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias entered as a caller pressing Jay's justification-vs-belief distinction against Ryan's pragmatism, and this line extends that same objection by citing a specific, checkable philosophical result (Duhem-Quine underdetermination) rather than merely restating the demand for justification. The verifier confirms the citation is real, correctly named despite mangled pronunciation, and correctly applied: underdetermination shows that "it works" cannot by itself grant justification for truth, which is precisely the point at issue with Ryan's pragmatist standard. This is a textbook case of distinguishing claim from evidence with something checkable cited.
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.