Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm writing a pretty interesting off case posistion about knowledge and truth production and I had a few questions.

First, is the argument that truth and knowledge are the prerequisite to all decision making and action intuitive enough or do I need a card? If i do need a card, where can I look?

Second, if I win that I control truth and knowlege production can I win that I control the internal link to the presentation of any argument?

Edited by EndlessFacepalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

truth doesn't matter

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. The Politics DA is legit.

 

I'm writing a pretty interesting off case posistion about knowledge and truth production and I had a few questions.

First, is the argument that truth and knowledge are the prerequisite to all decision making and action intuitive enough or do I need a card? If i do need a card, where can I look?

Second, if I win that I control truth and knowlege production can I win that I control the internal link to the presentation of any argument?

So basically this seems to boil down to an epistemology first argument, so to answer your questions, you can win these claims without cards, but it's better to read epistemology first cards specific to their impact scenario unless you're up to the task of doing a lot of specific contextual work in the block. This leads into your second question, which can be a winning strategy, so this is basically 'epistemology turns the case' which you see quite frequently with, say, a Counter Terrorism Studies K, or a Security K. 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically this seems to boil down to an epistemology first argument, so to answer your questions, you can win these claims without cards, but it's better to read epistemology first cards specific to their impact scenario unless you're up to the task of doing a lot of specific contextual work in the block. This leads into your second question, which can be a winning strategy, so this is basically 'epistemology turns the case' which you see quite frequently with, say, a Counter Terrorism Studies K, or a Security K. 

 

 

Well, sort of. It seems to me that a problem with characterizing this as an epistemological argument is that there is more than one theory of knowledge. I have no idea what "truth" you're talking about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The k is about how truth production is not accessible by the marginalized in society. I criticize the painting of the 1AC as true and then explain that true cannot exist in the squo because several methodologies of truth production are ignored because they aren't put forth by the white cis males in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The k is about how truth production is not accessible by the marginalized in society. I criticize the painting of the 1AC as true and then explain that true cannot exist in the squo because several methodologies of truth production are ignored because they aren't put forth by the white cis males in society.

Sounds like a massive Link of Omission K

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a massive Link of Omission K

I'ts more like, the representation of the 1AC is true excludes the marginalized

Or

The methodologies to discover the truth value of things in debate is inherently exclusionary to the marginalized

Or

Methodologies to determine scientific truth exclude the marginalized

Or

Processes used to determine truth are bound to fail because there is no total truth. Instead there are only multiple epistemological processes to determine a form of truth. The status quo methodologies exclude the marginalized in society. The only option is the adoption of the indigenous epistemology to allow for the decolonization of knowledge, which is the pre requisite to solve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EndlessFacepalm, on 25 Mar 2015 - 4:52 PM, said:

 

I'ts more like, the representation of the 1AC is true excludes the marginalized

Or

The methodologies to discover the truth value of things in debate is inherently exclusionary to the marginalized

Or

Methodologies to determine scientific truth exclude the marginalized

Or

Processes used to determine truth are bound to fail because there is no total truth. Instead there are only multiple epistemological processes to determine a form of truth. The status quo methodologies exclude the marginalized in society. The only option is the adoption of the indigenous epistemology to allow for the decolonization of knowledge, which is the pre requisite to solve anything.

It seems like you should also load up on case defense cards (even better if you indict their specific methodology) to make this more compelling to judges. This K begs the question of whether or not the aff is actually true. If they are, then they don't link to your offense.

 

Or you could take the position that Truth (capitalized) doesn't exist at all. But then that severely limits your strategic options and makes your own ability to argue even harder. First, how is it "true" that minorities are marginalized by claims of truth? Even if it that is true, why is it true that we should care at all if we don't believe in Truth? Truth is often a source of value.

 

Your "alternative" (I don't know if you actually intend to advocate this as a kritik alt) of indigenous epistemologies would need support. You almost necessarily need to exclude the Western forms of knowledge production (or else the perm probably solves). Why is your form of exclusion good while the aff's purported form of exclusion bad? The only thing I can think of is to say that your way is true, is the true way of getting to Truth, and that the aff's Western style is wrong. But that's an actual performative contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you should also load up on case defense cards (even better if you indict their specific methodology) to make this more compelling to judges. This K begs the question of whether or not the aff is actually true. If they are, then they don't link to your offense.

Or you could take the position that Truth (capitalized) doesn't exist at all. But then that severely limits your strategic options and makes your own ability to argue even harder. First, how is it "true" that minorities are marginalized by claims of truth? Even if it that is true, why is it true that we should care at all if we don't believe in Truth? Truth is often a source of value.

Your "alternative" (I don't know if you actually intend to advocate this as a kritik alt) of indigenous epistemologies would need support. You almost necessarily need to exclude the Western forms of knowledge production (or else the perm probably solves). Why is your form of exclusion good while the aff's purported form of exclusion bad? The only thing I can think of is to say that your way is true, is the true way of getting to Truth, and that the aff's Western style is wrong. But that's an actual performative contradiction.

There is no "Truth" there are only several methodologies to find a truth. I will never claim to find "The Truth" but only to find a truth.

The alt would probably be an indigenous epistemology. It is better because it comes to the same conclusions in the DnG-notion of fluidly, and also doesn't exclude marginalized peoples from truth production.

 

The issue isn't that either one of the sides is more true, more that one methodology is much more inclusive if others in educational and critical spaces.

 

Perm cannot solve because you need to decolonize knowledge production and the utilization or institutionalization of the indigenous epistemology is cooption. Also the perm is straight severence.

 

The way i think i will frame it is not as a question of whether or not the aff is true, but rather or not their methods to prove it is true are bad or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EndlessFacepalm, on 26 Mar 2015 - 06:33 AM, said:

The issue isn't that either one of the sides is more true, more that one methodology is much more inclusive if others in educational and critical spaces.

 

Perm cannot solve because you need to decolonize knowledge production and the utilization or institutionalization of the indigenous epistemology is cooption. Also the perm is straight severence.

 

The way i think i will frame it is not as a question of whether or not the aff is true, but rather or not their methods to prove it is true are bad or not.

You say your methodology is more inclusive. You then say that the perm, which would most likely be phrased as using both methods of knowledge production, is cooption. There's so much tension there that it's almost, if not actually is, a performative contradiction. You haven't answered the question of how you get to exclude the aff (to answer the perm) while they don't get to exclude you (your link).

 

"the perm is straight severence" That's an assertion. How is it severance at all?

 

How about this. Your link is to the justifications of the plan, not the plan itself. Thus, the plan could be justified via indigenous methodologies (in addition to the Western methodologies the aff already has presented to justify it). Thus, both methodologies [could] justify the plan. How is the perm severance then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several warranted assertions made by the authors of the lit that the inclusion of the methodologies are being "used" in the squo but only ever as an afterthought. I would argue that the perm is exactly that. In order to do the alt it has to the exclusive to one action, not an afterthought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several warranted assertions made by the authors of the lit that the inclusion of the methodologies are being "used" in the squo but only ever as an afterthought. I would argue that the perm is exactly that. In order to do the alt it has to the exclusive to one action, not an afterthought.

 

Then you link to the performative contradiction part of my argument. "Oh, it's only violent/bad to exclude when it's Westerners that are doing it". There are A LOT of problems with that line of argument. I mean, sure, it's defensible, but you're going to need to have good warrants for it.

 

It's a double bind argument: either you're a perf con because you also exclude and that's bad, or you don't exclude so the perm works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No im trying to say that you do have to exclude. I don't want to get into it but the basis of the lit, (as far as i understand) says that you have to disrupt an educational system to make space for the new epistemology and that you need that and only that to change things. You have to, (in this space) use only indigenous epistemology until your ends are met, at which point, your epistemology has carved a niche out and has space to grow.

It's not perfect but it's an argument i believe in, and i want to cut it even if you keep telling me its stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No im trying to say that you do have to exclude. I don't want to get into it but the basis of the lit, (as far as i understand) says that you have to disrupt an educational system to make space for the new epistemology and that you need that and only that to change things. You have to, (in this space) use only indigenous epistemology until your ends are met, at which point, your epistemology has carved a niche out and has space to grow.

It's not perfect but it's an argument i believe in, and i want to cut it even if you keep telling me its stupid.

I want to make clear that it was never my intention to suggest or say that it's stupid. I was trying to make that clear by clarifying that I think that it's defensible but that there is tension. That was when I made such statements as "it's defensible, but you're going to need to have good warrants for it". I was trying to offer constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No im trying to say that you do have to exclude. I don't want to get into it but the basis of the lit, (as far as i understand) says that you have to disrupt an educational system to make space for the new epistemology and that you need that and only that to change things. You have to, (in this space) use only indigenous epistemology until your ends are met, at which point, your epistemology has carved a niche out and has space to grow.

 

I feel like it's really hard to win 

1. Your truth is the right truth

2. Your alt is actually indigenous epistemology (whatever that means)

3. The aff does not incorporate indigenous epistemology in some sense (again, no idea what that means)

 

I think that this probably comes from my misunderstanding of what exactly "indigenous epistemology" is. Either you essentialize or I can just google 2 groups who ideologically disagreed with each other regarding method...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are talking about Foucault.....isn't his contention that "all knowledge is power."  It would seem that all knowledge claims are equally implicated, which is to say your alternative links to your argument too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I've run things similar to this (but more specific I guess?) I was looking at your arguments above and I do think this would be difficult to win as a wide ranging, generic kritik. I feel like to make this more workable or easier to win you should narrow down your argumentation. As in, the search for the capital-t Truth is bad in (x) instance rather than in all instances. You could use the literature you have now, but specialize it. An epistemological version of the Development K from the Latin America topic might work well here (that's the one with which I have the most experience) as it holds the thesis that Westernized knowledge production is not the only form of production and we can reach truth in other ways. The alt in this case wasn't indigenous KP in of itself, but instead a critical approach that we could take to westernized KP to allow for indigenous KP (which addresses some of the issues brought up above).

 

I think maybe you're aiming a little broad with this which makes it more difficult to be workable in a debate setting. If you want to be able to pull off a few wins on this, I would make a few versions and play around with some Development literature (like Escobar) and see what comes out of it. Of course, on next years (HS) topic, development lit is unlikely to apply, so I'm unsure how you'd get this to work under surveillance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I've run things similar to this (but more specific I guess?) I was looking at your arguments above and I do think this would be difficult to win as a wide ranging, generic kritik. I feel like to make this more workable or easier to win you should narrow down your argumentation. As in, the search for the capital-t Truth is bad in (x) instance rather than in all instances. You could use the literature you have now, but specialize it. An epistemological version of the Development K from the Latin America topic might work well here (that's the one with which I have the most experience) as it holds the thesis that Westernized knowledge production is not the only form of production and we can reach truth in other ways. The alt in this case wasn't indigenous KP in of itself, but instead a critical approach that we could take to westernized KP to allow for indigenous KP (which addresses some of the issues brought up above).

 

I think maybe you're aiming a little broad with this which makes it more difficult to be workable in a debate setting. If you want to be able to pull off a few wins on this, I would make a few versions and play around with some Development literature (like Escobar) and see what comes out of it. Of course, on next years (HS) topic, development lit is unlikely to apply, so I'm unsure how you'd get this to work under surveillance. 

I'm interested in this advice thanks! But yeah I have definitely trimmed and realigned the K I'm reading so it will be less problematic for me, but I will still be able to read it on surveillance, but it will have to be run after some key concessions in CX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Methodologies to determine scientific truth exclude the marginalized

 

It's phrases like this which convinces me the academic criticisms of science don't understand what science actually is.  This sentence is meaningless.  

 

Science does not determine truth.  Science determines falsehood.  The truth is somewhere in the epistemological space that is left after you cut all the falsehood out.  Scientific theories are our best guesses that we haven't been able to exclude, and when they're wrong, it is science which will eventually find that.  They are not "Truth".

 

Winning that there are false descriptions of the world / reality should be trivial.  I prefer a Bayesian approach in argumentation on this point - how much would you bet on a particular ridiculous description of the world being true?  One that we can test right in the room, like, say, that gravity doesn't exist.  That is, if i let go of a pen in mid-air, it won't fall.  Place your bet.  If you won't bet at equal odds against me betting it will fall, then clearly we have an agreement on a belief about a particular description of the world being false. 

 

That's not even getting to the 'exclude the marginalized' portion of the claim, which is obviously false on face once you realize what science actually is.  (The only thing identifying false descriptions of reality excludes is people who are selling something that depends on believing a falsehood, and they deserve to be excluded because they profit from lies.)

 

One of these days I'm going to cut a big philosophy of science file.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's phrases like this which convinces me the academic criticisms of science don't understand what science actually is. This sentence is meaningless.

 

Science does not determine truth. Science determines falsehood. The truth is somewhere in the epistemological space that is left after you cut all the falsehood out. Scientific theories are our best guesses that we haven't been able to exclude, and when they're wrong, it is science which will eventually find that. They are not "Truth".

 

Winning that there are false descriptions of the world / reality should be trivial. I prefer a Bayesian approach in argumentation on this point - how much would you bet on a particular ridiculous description of the world being true? One that we can test right in the room, like, say, that gravity doesn't exist. That is, if i let go of a pen in mid-air, it won't fall. Place your bet. If you won't bet at equal odds against me betting it will fall, then clearly we have an agreement on a belief about a particular description of the world being false.

 

That's not even getting to the 'exclude the marginalized' portion of the claim, which is obviously false on face once you realize what science actually is. (The only thing identifying false descriptions of reality excludes is people who are selling something that depends on believing a falsehood, and they deserve to be excluded because they profit from lies.)

 

One of these days I'm going to cut a big philosophy of science file.

 

K.

 

I've read four different books in the lit base now, and I now understand that my conception of the argument I found was incomplete at the time of posting, which is why I posed the question in the first place, cuz ya know, people sometimes need help or constructive criticism from a helpful source. But i learned my lesson, debate is only for the intellectual elite, with no room for those who don't keep up.

 

Don't worry I've had plenty of people try to "put me in my place" by explaining how dumb I was by posing my original question, but thanks for trying your best to really nail me this time. It was definitely informative and constructive.

Edited by EndlessFacepalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K.

 

I've read four different books in the lit base now, and I now understand that my conception of the argument I found was incomplete at the time of posting, which is why I posed the question in the first place, cuz ya know, people sometimes need help or constructive criticism from a helpful source. But i learned my lesson, debate is only for the intellectual elite, with no room for those who don't keep up.

 

Don't worry I've had plenty of people try to "put me in my place" by explaining how dumb I was by posing my original question, but thanks for trying your best to really nail me this time. It was definitely informative and constructive.

 

I assumed it was an argument you got from the literature.  That wasn't 'you are dumb', that's 'this argument is dumb'.  You'll notice I addressed my criticism to the academic literature, not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's phrases like this which convinces me the academic criticisms of science don't understand what science actually is.  This sentence is meaningless.  

 

Science does not determine truth.  Science determines falsehood.  The truth is somewhere in the epistemological space that is left after you cut all the falsehood out.  Scientific theories are our best guesses that we haven't been able to exclude, and when they're wrong, it is science which will eventually find that.  They are not "Truth".

 

Winning that there are false descriptions of the world / reality should be trivial.  I prefer a Bayesian approach in argumentation on this point - how much would you bet on a particular ridiculous description of the world being true?  One that we can test right in the room, like, say, that gravity doesn't exist.  That is, if i let go of a pen in mid-air, it won't fall.  Place your bet.  If you won't bet at equal odds against me betting it will fall, then clearly we have an agreement on a belief about a particular description of the world being false. 

 

That's not even getting to the 'exclude the marginalized' portion of the claim, which is obviously false on face once you realize what science actually is.  (The only thing identifying false descriptions of reality excludes is people who are selling something that depends on believing a falsehood, and they deserve to be excluded because they profit from lies.)

 

One of these days I'm going to cut a big philosophy of science file.  

Your analysis presupposes the existence of something we can identify as "Science". What you describe is a specific method used to make scientific claims. You then extend this to say that all "Science" is based on reaching falsehoods. But is this really what "Science" in more general terms? Not quite, or maybe more appropriately, probably not.

 

The conception of Science that you offer seems to assume a teleological component structures it. That is, although you say that Science doesn't look for Truth but simply denies falsehoods, is this not itself pre-determining the essence of Science? If you're so big on the phil of science, you're surely aware of Kuhnian and Foucauldian critiques of this type of thinking. These critiques propose a version of Science that is both always caught up in the larger whole society and is without inherent aim. Under this framing of Science, your analysis seems sadly incomplete. Sure, your Bayesian example makes sense; I'm not going to bet against gravity. But is it fair to say that the extent of Science is as obvious as these examples? What about quantum physics? Medicine? Mental illness? Clearly, you would not be able to set up simple betting examples for these parts of Science as you did with gravity. 

 

So to bring the point back to the claim EndlessFacepalm made, I would say it is inaccurate to say that all science is based on the exclusion of others. But it seems impossible to ignore the instances in which scientific concepts and scientific thinking have excluded others. For example, look at the emergence of psychiatric theory and practice. Here we see the exclusion of individuals which this scientific system of thought has deemed as mentally ill. From the outset they are excluded due to this scientific methods' complicity with societal (relating to capitalist Western societies) values and morals based on the supremacy of reason, efficiency, and productiveness. Clearly, unless we pigeonhole the definition of Science to the limited conception you offer, Science is capable of creating exclusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...