upRootNutrition/obsidian
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git synced 2025-06-15 23:15:12 -05:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

feat: reorganized hyperblog and added vitamin D paper

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Nick 2024-09-26 12:48:46 -05:00
parent 0fe545c254
commit e22bd788fe
167 changed files with 235 additions and 98 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

72
🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Anticarnick.md Executable file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"the claim that killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations is unfalsifiable"
---
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. unfalsifiable
1. still no clue
1. a hypothesis is falsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is practically achievable
2. a hypothesis is unfalsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is impractical
2. disprove
1.
---
## Clarified Proposition
>demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis that "killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations" is impractical
## Questions
1.
# Dom's Rebuttal
>Both "killing X reduces rights violations" (A) and its negation "killing X does not reduce rights violations" (B) are falsifiable, as long as the goalposts arent moved. For both you can devise some experiment where we observe rights violations (in a set area, for a given time, etc), kill X, observe rights violations under the same constraints again. Lets label the results "less rights violations observed" P and "equal or more rights violations observed Q. Under:
>
>A+P, A is not rejected
>A+Q, A is rejected
>B+P, B is rejected
>B+Q, B is not rejected
---
### Dom's Reductio
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If one claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations and one can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable, then the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P∧Q→¬R)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> One claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> One can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬R)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5~3R),(P),(Q)|=(~3R))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents