Debate:Is the United States Constitution True?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Is the United States Constitution true?)
(Is the United States Constitution true?)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
:::If we say it becomes true because "it's enforced", isn't that a fallacious appeal to punishment/appeal to the stick? Could we prove the Koran to be true by "enforcing" it?
 
:::If we say it becomes true because "it's enforced", isn't that a fallacious appeal to punishment/appeal to the stick? Could we prove the Koran to be true by "enforcing" it?
 
::::No, because the claims made by the Constitution are claims about what the government will do. If the government does these things, then the Constitution is true. The claims the Koran makes are not only claims about what Muslims will do. The part of the Koran that says that Muslims pray facing Mecca multiple times a day are shown to be true by Muslims doing this. The parts that claim that God spoke to Mohammad are obviously not affected by whether belief of this is enforced. You've made this exact same argument before, it has never worked. Appeal to punishment is only for when a threat is used to command someone to agree with you. I never said that if you should accept my argument or I will punish you. Don't make this argument again if you want anyone to take you seriously. --[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 
::::No, because the claims made by the Constitution are claims about what the government will do. If the government does these things, then the Constitution is true. The claims the Koran makes are not only claims about what Muslims will do. The part of the Koran that says that Muslims pray facing Mecca multiple times a day are shown to be true by Muslims doing this. The parts that claim that God spoke to Mohammad are obviously not affected by whether belief of this is enforced. You've made this exact same argument before, it has never worked. Appeal to punishment is only for when a threat is used to command someone to agree with you. I never said that if you should accept my argument or I will punish you. Don't make this argument again if you want anyone to take you seriously. --[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 +
:::::What exactly do we mean by enforcement if not punishments or threats of punishments?[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 
::::If you say x is true because someone else will do the enforcing instead of you, then does it become non-fallacious? Like, if I said x is true not because I enforce it but because someone else will, then does it become a reasoned argument?[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 04:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 
::::If you say x is true because someone else will do the enforcing instead of you, then does it become non-fallacious? Like, if I said x is true not because I enforce it but because someone else will, then does it become a reasoned argument?[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 04:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:09, 6 December 2014

Debate.JPG This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by LogicMaster777.


Contents

Proposition

I think it's something people take on faith rather than reason or evidence. LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the United States Constitution true?

From LM777's talk page "Constitutions are generally imperatives, not informative. It's a little odd to talk about truth in them. The sentence "Pass the salt." isn't really true or false. The closest you can get is whether or not you were then passed salt. This would imply that truth is a matter of enforcement. So, the constitution is true if the laws it makes are enforced."--TiaC (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If one were to take "the constitution shall be the highest law of the land" as the literal truth, would that be based on faith or evidence?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's enforced, so it's a law of the land. There isn't really any law that takes precedence over it, so it's the highest law. Therefore, evidence. (This is of course only referring to human laws, obviously physical laws take precedence. No one really thinks that the constitution claims to overrule physical laws though.)--TiaC (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If we say it becomes true because "it's enforced", isn't that a fallacious appeal to punishment/appeal to the stick? Could we prove the Koran to be true by "enforcing" it?
No, because the claims made by the Constitution are claims about what the government will do. If the government does these things, then the Constitution is true. The claims the Koran makes are not only claims about what Muslims will do. The part of the Koran that says that Muslims pray facing Mecca multiple times a day are shown to be true by Muslims doing this. The parts that claim that God spoke to Mohammad are obviously not affected by whether belief of this is enforced. You've made this exact same argument before, it has never worked. Appeal to punishment is only for when a threat is used to command someone to agree with you. I never said that if you should accept my argument or I will punish you. Don't make this argument again if you want anyone to take you seriously. --TiaC (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
What exactly do we mean by enforcement if not punishments or threats of punishments?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If you say x is true because someone else will do the enforcing instead of you, then does it become non-fallacious? Like, if I said x is true not because I enforce it but because someone else will, then does it become a reasoned argument?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC) +

If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The obvious problem there is that not all of the Quran can be directly enforced: for example, you can't order the police to make it so that Allah made the heavens and the earth, or make a law that makes Allah prepare a fire for the infidel. You can create a state which enforces Quranic law (which would indeed make that law "true" in the sense the constitution is true) but that's not the same thing. King Skeleton (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can the U.S. Constitution be proven to be true?

Can the U.S. Constitution be proven to be false?

Is the constitution=true a falsifiable hypothesis?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide a logical argument to prove that the U.S. Constitution is true.

If the constitution is true and if you can prove it do so here using a logical argument and/or formal logic proof.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Controlled experiment

Propose a controlled experiment to prove the constitution as true or false.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide a logical argument why the U.S. Constitution is false

Should we believe in the constitution if it is proven false?

If the constitution were proven false, should we still accept it as true?

Should we believe in the constitution if it is unproven either way?

Should we believe in it on faith even if it is unproven?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's usually taken as an axiomatic truth (ie self-evident, as the document itself says). Axioms are used as the beginning of reasoning because it must begin somewhere (eg the proposition "words mean things" is rather hard to prove without assuming it to be true or disprove without self-negation). King Skeleton (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So it is the same as my constitution in this respect, right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sure, there's nothing magic about it, it's just a list of things the authors think will make a functional society. The difference is in that people accepted that it was the law of the land and actually set up the structures it describes. Think of it like two drawings of bridges, one of which was actually built. That one is useful for addressing the structure of the real bridge if we need to, but it's no less a drawing than the other. King Skeleton (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should we believe in the constitution if it is proven false?

Why should we believe in the constitution if it is unproven?

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support