Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Taman Shud
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Taman Shud »

When I first heard about the debate, my first thought was, "Why is Matt giving Sye an audience?" I know some reason could be, "To expose Sye and his arguments for what they are." or "To show how to debate a presuppositionalist."

After watching the debate, I'm still left wondering. It is one of those positions that the faithful will view the debate as a success for Sye and learn nothing. To me this walks the razor thin line of officially calling it a debate, as Sye seems incapable of debating and Matt didn't really seem to be on his game.

I agree that this was boring as far as debates go and I could've spent my time better. The only thing I learned is that, in the future, I'm going to ignore presuppositionalist debates, no matter who is doing the debating.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Volenta wrote:Isn't Matt also making an error in his logic? His position is that he can not prove he's not a brain in a vat, but when Sye asks whether he could be, Matt says it can't.
I think Sye asked if Matt thought he was a brain in a vat, and Matt said no, he doesn't believe that is true.
Volenta wrote:Matt says that if something isn't proven to be false, that this doesn't mean it is possible.
That's true.

If something is proven to be false, it is impossible.

If something is proven to be true, of course it is possible.

If there is no truth either way, then we don't know if something is or is not possible.

For example, warp drives of some kind may or may not be possible. We don't know.

In common English, people say "it's possible" when they really mean "it's possible as far as I know", or "I don't know that it is impossible".

Whether we know something or not, is is true that it is either possible or impossible; there isn't any middle ground there. But as far as knowledge claims go, there is a 'middle ground' of neutrality in asserting neither- that the possibility or impossibility of a matter is unknown.

This is a case of Sye trying to shift the burden of proof, and make out as if Matt is making a knowledge claim on the subject.

It seems that Matt did a poor job of explaining this.
Volenta wrote:if you claim to know something isn't possible, you must be able to prove it to be false.
Correct. If you assert that something is impossible, you should be able to prove it to be false.

However, Matt didn't say that. He said the lack of proof that something is false doesn't make it possible (e.g. capable of being true- which it may or may not be in fact)

There are many examples of this in mathematics and science.

Warp drive is a good example.
Just because we can't prove that it's impossible, doesn't automatically mean it's possible.
Worm holes are the same.

A common example of it used to make illogical claims:

Nobody has proven that it is impossible -> therefore it's possible -> therefore it can be done!

This is a logical fallacy. It's a form of ambiguity with regards to the usage of the word "possible". As well as shifting the burden of proof.

P = NP vs. P ≠ NP is similar, in the domain of mathematics.
Although, typically only computer scientists and mathematicians understand that, and they're less likely to make the mistake in assuming something without proof.
Volenta wrote:Certainly your default position should be that something isn't true until proven otherwise (and not vice versa) because of the burden of proof,
Correct. And he does.
Volenta wrote:but you can't rule out the possibility.
This statement is begging the question; it assumes that it is possible, without it having been proven to be possible.

You can't rule out a possibility if it hasn't been shown to be possible in the first place.
If it hasn't been shown to be impossible either, all you can do is say you don't know if it is or isn't possible.

I can make a very compelling argument against hard solipsism (I'm not sure if Matt can, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't heard one before).
Hard solipsism may be logically impossible- as he stated, he doesn't know either way.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Taman Shud wrote: I agree that this was boring as far as debates go and I could've spent my time better. The only thing I learned is that, in the future, I'm going to ignore presuppositionalist debates, no matter who is doing the debating.
It's useful to set youtube to use HTML 5, then you can double the play speed (so you can watch a debate in half the time). I have to say, I watch most videos at either 1.5x or 2x speed.
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Volenta »

@brimstoneSalad
Well, maybe I misunderstood it because like you said possibility can have 2 meanings; possibility as a probability of existing, or as the capability of existing. It seems Sye used the first definition, and Matt answered it using the second definition.

See 38:46 in the video for what I'm referring to.
kian.zarrin
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:08 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by kian.zarrin »

Matt uses his reasoning to prove that he is able to reason reliably. This is circular reasoning according to my understanding.
Matt drew an analogy of picking up a pen and use it to test if it works.
But this is a poor analogy. If your mind is messed up in every sense, then it is possible that you use your irrational mind to reach to the irrational and false conclusion that your mind is reliable.

I rely on my mind to find the reality. But I have a different reason for doing so:
Premise 1: reality exists and I can observe it ( This premise can be justified in another argument. )
Premise 2: it is possible* that my brain is messed up in every sense so much so that I cannot know anything about reality.
Premise 3: It is possible* that my brain is reliable to some extent so much so that I do have a chance of knowing the reality to some extent.
Purpose : know as much about reality as possible.
Conclusion: So here on one side of the scales I have no chance of knowing the reality. On the other side of the scales I have some chance of knowing the reality. Well! I am going to take my chances!
Note: This is not circular reasoning as in premise 2 I have admitted that it is possible* that I cannot know anything about reality.
* possible = probable according to our understanding.
reality.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Taman Shud
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Taman Shud »

kian.zarrin wrote:Matt uses his reasoning to prove that he is able to reason reliably. This is circular reasoning according to my understanding.
First one must accept that we can only interact with out environment through the use of our imperfect bodies, which contain our many senses and a brain. This state of being is the only known state, that we are aware of. In this state and in conjunction with how we interact with our surroundings deductions can be made about nature, tested and either be true, false or need more study. As time marches on, the collective learns more and more about nature and how it works. At this point it doesn't matter if I live in a matrix, I am a brain in a jar or just a hologram from a black hole. I seemingly share a reality, with others, that seem to have similar experiences, that I do interacting with nature and each other. Using our experiences and creating a reliable testing platform so others can repeat our experiments and can therefore confirm or deny them.

In order for this system to work, many things come into play and being reasonable is one of them. We are stuck with what we have to do things that we want and through life one hopes that they exercise their reason a sufficient amount of time to get a barometer of how well you are assessing any new situations that come up. Being limited to what we can comprehend makes things like reasoning important and fluid. The more you exercise your reasoning and the more you turn out to be right using your reasoning, the more likely you'll get a right answer than a wrong answer.

So through personal, comparative, analysis- over time- one can see where reason succeeded or failed in determining something. And, one can use that information to help you make better informed decisions, in the future. Making it OK to say that because you have this process to reason things out, you can use your history of reasoning, to gauge your reasoning now.

This is not circular reasoning.
User avatar
Shadow Fox
Junior Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Shadow Fox »

I only got to the first hour and I just couldn't watch it anymore.

Sye kept using footage after footage and it was just annoying. Plus, Matt just is not interesting of a person to listen to IMO. I just cannot get past his bland and strange personality.
We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Volenta »

Dillahunty made a great reflection video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TsyshlR_k
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Volenta wrote:Dillahunty made a great reflection video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TsyshlR_k
Excellent reflection; one of Matt's best videos.

Thanks for that!
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Matt vs. Sye the presuppositionalist

Post by Volenta »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Excellent reflection; one of Matt's best videos.

Thanks for that!
He also started a video series tearing apart arguments for god's existence (see his YouTube-channel). It sure is worth checking out, very useful material.

Edit:
This video was actually part of this series.

Part 2 is also up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2QUj3HoLxk
Post Reply