Official Tourney Judges, please leave your video comment with the score as a reply to this comment:
My main criticism for yall both was a lack of aggressiveness, I think there were several potential take-down moments yall could have gone for the jugular on.
My vote goes to Timothy, but I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I also hope the pointers I gave within will help you as you debate in the future. Thanks guys!
@laurenburdt2011 please check this ^ video comment by @feelinsofly
(@feelinsofly just showcasing your awesome coaching/feedback video comment to NSDA - Lauren)
Someone actually disagrees with this statement? Wow.
'Significantly' contributes.............. there's your debate right there
And what they mean by 'progress'???
I don't actually disagree with it, I simply argued it for the sake of arguing.
Watching this in the mean time!!!!! the last debate woodox took part in
Did you like it, David?
Interested in hearing how you will approach these interesting terms..science, human progress...looking forward!
Should I order chinese food for this debate? Is it too late?
Good luck to you both - great having you here!
+100 points on the QallOut ref
So human progress is the equivalent of technological advancement..hmm
Putting a man on the moon wasn't necessary but many would argue that it was a landmark moment in human progress...and it was driven by science.
It was the byproduct of the Cold War. The space race influenced the 'need' to build it to beat the Russians to prove technologic dominance. While the method aided I'm that pursuit, the socio-political pressure is the cause of the need for progress.
Fair point. What about the Hubble?
This would be a better example of Science working with in itself, a tuned to Timothy's position.
interesting point about how scientists, philosophers etc used to be.. still not convinced though..
But technology by itself is based on the basics of science and scientific approach! The fact that it can be driven by curiosity doesn't change that..So many scientific advancements have been discovered by accident as well. Unless there is a strict definition that I'm not aware?
Science, and its methods, did not exist, prior to the 1700's. You are applying the nature of Science to a time in which the nature of Science was not as it is today.
tbh i believe in GOD
"The 5000 Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen would be an interesting read after this debate. It doesn't tackle this concept head on but it is about human progress and DOES touch on this debate topic a few times.
My vote goes to Timothy. Great job both of you!
I know the 7 steps, but they aren't themselves the focus of the debate. Thanks for judging :)
For those not wishing to watch my entire video, I judge Timothy the winner.
I appreciate your critique, Chas. I would just say that we would, as we did in World War II. Not because of specifically the method itself, that's equating technology with Science. That technology arises from Science, but historically it hasn't. This was the distinction between industry Science, the industry of research, verses a specific method of observation. The industry of Science definitely attributes to technology, but the particular methodologies do not.That was my argument, in a nutshell.
Great analysis, @chasuk
It was a good argument, in itself. It was probably the best argument that you could have made. Truthfully, I expected a different tactic entirely – the "Science has wrought more harm than it has ever brought good" approach. But your approach was innovative, and I salute you for it.
As a side, I don't actually agree with the position I chose. I like to challenge myself, but, perhaps, I should have chosen something a little less one sided. :/
Thanks you, brother!
Tough call... but if i HAVE to choose a winner, @woodox87 takes it, who also had the tougher position
Thank you, Yaz! I appreciate your insight.
@woodox87 Have you head of Paul Feyerabend, the author of Against Method?
No, @meta_self , I have not. Why do you ask?
He was a philosopher of science who came up with the idea of epistemological anarchism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism) which states that science doesn't have a monopoly on useful knowledge. Fruitful knowledge can come from anywhere, a "whatever goes" attitude to epistemology. I thought you would glean some useful insights from his work, considering the position you took in this debate.
@meta_self can't wait to watch you debate!