How can you debate if you believe in relative truth?

[Lisnpuppy]

Honestly I don't see how mathematics (at least simple mathematics-I guess things like calculus and trig could be more open to debate but I still would put forth this supposition) is up for possible debate. You can argue on a philosophical level that 1 + 1 is banana but is a "relative truth of philosophy."

 

If you put one apple on the table and another apple on the table then you count two apples. It is a verifiable quantity and can be proven and done the same over and over. In other words the experiment is repeatable and independently verifiable.

 

An argument that the apples may or may not exist or are in fact coconuts is not relevant to the case of mathematical truth. If both parties agree that both objects are indeed, apples, then all else is moot. If the parties do not agree that the apples exist or are coconuts then the math can not go forward at that point anyway..and the point would be moot. If both parties begin discussing particle physics and string theory and its 11 dimensions then the mathematical point is moot.

 

I think that everyone here now is in a cyclic argument at this point and I am not sure how much more anyone can say. Most arguments of truth are indeed philosophical in nature at this point. Most truths are relative as they are a matter of perspective. They are only truth to you. They are the things you believe based on the totality of your life. These things can not be agreed upon nor can your experiences likely be duplicated. Moral truths are relative and most scientific truths (ie facts) are relative to a small extent as they are theories of which some have been repeated independently so much that they are assumed facts, but have not been "proven" in the sense as we go out and say..stare into a black hole in person.

 

However here is my answer to the original question. Debating someone has little to do with the truths they hold (regardless of kind), but more with the willingness of their minds to consider and perhaps hold more than one truth. If they are unwilling or unable to do this then there is no debate...there are simple cyclic arguments and yelling matches.

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

 

 

It is hard to debate some facts, like 4x3=12, though under the latest educational reform here in the US (Common Core) if you say 4x3=11 and show how you got there, you get credit.

 

Now that is honestly one of the most ridiculous statement to make about Common core that is so misleading to the point it is just total misinformation... Common Core is about providing a consistent and clear understanding of what students are expected to learn so the U.S. can compete on a global level of understanding and education. The problem is regulating the standards effectively and efficiently state by state. Common Core in no way is about providing credit to students just by showing their effort when answers are incorrect...

 

http://www.corestandards.org/

 

I guess... "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth, a truth which is hard to shake even with real facts."

 

 

You obviously never saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0VxxoCrNo

 

 

lol After watching the short vid you linked it seemed you missed the entire point of her "hypothetical" example. They want students to "explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer." Never once was the video implying in any way shape or form of "giving credit" to students for incorrect answers but more so helping them to understand why they came up with the wrong answers to begin with...

 

 

Color, if you read my original post, you'd see I said "and show how your got there". To me that still doesn't excuse the wrong answer. If you don't get the right answer, its wrong, doesn't matter if you 'knew' how to do it.

 

Without understand how you came up with an answer whether it being wrong or right you are simply just satisfy the metrics of a course and not really learning anything at all to begin with... The whole purpose of school is after all to learn not just to always come up with the right answers regardless if you understand them or not....

[Ghogiel]

Like the 1 + 1 = 2? or was it 10?

 

Again, it just depends on who you are talking to. (both gotta be on the same page.)

 

 

1+1=2 will be true even if there were no humans or beings to think it.

[HeyYou]

A

 

 

Like the 1 + 1 = 2? or was it 10?

 

Again, it just depends on who you are talking to. (both gotta be on the same page.)

 

 

1+1=2 will be true even if there were no humans or beings to think it.

 

As would 1 + 1 = 10.

 

Truth is relative.

[Ghogiel]

A

 

 

Like the 1 + 1 = 2? or was it 10?

 

Again, it just depends on who you are talking to. (both gotta be on the same page.)

 

 

1+1=2 will be true even if there were no humans or beings to think it.

 

As would 1 + 1 = 10.

 

Truth is relative.

Nope.

[Lisnpuppy]

A

 

 

Like the 1 + 1 = 2? or was it 10?

 

Again, it just depends on who you are talking to. (both gotta be on the same page.)

 

 

1+1=2 will be true even if there were no humans or beings to think it.

 

As would 1 + 1 = 10.

 

Truth is relative.

I think you are getting caught up in the truth of what we name something and not what it is.

 

So lets do this...I have two apples. I ask you to show me the same amount of apples or the same amount of any given thing.

 

Are you still going to tell me you can put up seven apples? Or 4 apples, a coconut and a banana? Because again I say (as I did in my last post) that at this point you are going to start arguing the truth that the apples exist or are in fact coconuts and this is a metaphysical philosophy question (which would render any truth to be a non-absolute and isn't a repeatable thing) or a alternate dimension quantum physics question.

 

If this is your truth (that 1+1 = 10) then I beg you to take me with you the next time you are at odds with your bank about your checking account.

 

I think your argument also would go toward proving the OP's supposition that you can not debate someone regarding relative truths.

[HeyYou]

In certain circumstances, 1 + 1 does in fact equal 10. (think: Binary) Your example of apples does not equate. Yeah, its a pretty thin distinction, but, a distinction none-the-less. (as 10 base 2 does in fact equal 2 base 10.)

 

It really doesn't matter what 'truth' you put forward, there WILL be someone that will challenge your truth.

[Lisnpuppy]

I believe your binary example does not equate...or rather it does...as the circumstances in binary of which 1 + 1 will equal 10 will always have it equal 10 in those same circumstances and this isn't a matter of truth-relative or not- it is a matter of replacement confusion..thus the naming of things again.

 

The truths of that code will be the same regardless when repeating that set of circumstances, will they not?

 

You are in fact, taking my apples to apples comparison and making an apples to Cuneiform comparison. You are not arguing relative truths...a relative truth is the truth chances as to where you are in relation to the truth...not the truth changes relative to itself. Its a rope-a-dope argument.

 

However since the original debate question was can you really debate someone that holds truth to be relative then you win! As you have proven beyond a doubt that you in fact, can not.

 

*golf clap* :laugh:

 

I think you can stick a fork into this one..it is done.

[Keanumoreira]

Honestly I don't see how mathematics (at least simple mathematics-I guess things like calculus and trig could be more open to debate but I still would put forth this supposition) is up for possible debate. You can argue on a philosophical level that 1 + 1 is banana but is a "relative truth of philosophy."

 

If you put one apple on the table and another apple on the table then you count two apples. It is a verifiable quantity and can be proven and done the same over and over. In other words the experiment is repeatable and independently verifiable.

 

An argument that the apples may or may not exist or are in fact coconuts is not relevant to the case of mathematical truth. If both parties agree that both objects are indeed, apples, then all else is moot. If the parties do not agree that the apples exist or are coconuts then the math can not go forward at that point anyway..and the point would be moot. If both parties begin discussing particle physics and string theory and its 11 dimensions then the mathematical point is moot.

 

I think that everyone here now is in a cyclic argument at this point and I am not sure how much more anyone can say. Most arguments of truth are indeed philosophical in nature at this point. Most truths are relative as they are a matter of perspective. They are only truth to you. They are the things you believe based on the totality of your life. These things can not be agreed upon nor can your experiences likely be duplicated. Moral truths are relative and most scientific truths (ie facts) are relative to a small extent as they are theories of which some have been repeated independently so much that they are assumed facts, but have not been "proven" in the sense as we go out and say..stare into a black hole in person.

 

However here is my answer to the original question. Debating someone has little to do with the truths they hold (regardless of kind), but more with the willingness of their minds to consider and perhaps hold more than one truth. If they are unwilling or unable to do this then there is no debate...there are simple cyclic arguments and yelling matches.

 

This sums it up perfectly.

[Ghogiel]

In certain circumstances, 1 + 1 does in fact equal 10. (think: Binary) Your example of apples does not equate. Yeah, its a pretty thin distinction, but, a distinction none-the-less. (as 10 base 2 does in fact equal 2 base 10.)

 

It really doesn't matter what 'truth' you put forward, there WILL be someone that will challenge your truth.

*cough*

1 + 1 in Binary equals 10. Try adding those numbers again in binary, and you should realize why you are wrong. No matter how many times you or anyone else does it, it never will change

 

Secondly your argument is a fallacy, try not moving goal posts, sophimoric semantic twisting is just silly games designed exactly to obfuscate truth.