Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 25, 2020, 02:29:54 PM
-
A Laddie on another thread has said that beliefs should have sound reasons so
sound reasons for the following if you please...…
Materialism
Physicalism
Empiricism
Scientism
Naturalism
Much obliged!
-
A Laddie on another thread has said that beliefs should have sound reasons so
sound reasons for the following if you please...…
Materialism
Physicalism
Empiricism
Scientism
Naturalism
Much obliged!
there's so much wrong with that, I can't motivate myself to interact with you on it!
-
A Laddie on another thread has said that beliefs should have sound reasons so sound reasons for the following if you please...
Depends on what you mean by some of the terms, but...
Materialism
It works?
Do people have a philosophical 'belief' in materialism? I suspect that the consistent, reliable evidence of scientific enquiry that follows on from a materialist assumption is validation that it's a pragmatic way to operate, but in the main I think people accept that materialism is likely given the lack of any reliable evidence for anything else.
Physicalism
I've never heard of 'physicalism' before; looking it up it seems like a specific variation on materialism, and where it's accepted I'd guess it's accepted on the same basis.
Empiricism
Empiricism isn't a belief, it's a methodology - it's still used because it's effective. I accept there are probably some people that try to ideologize it - probably into something approaching materialism - but that's not what it is.
Scientism
Just a derogatory term form a materialist, in most of the instances I've seen it used. It's not inherently justifiable from an ideological point, for much the same reasons as materialism - science is founded on the principal that any given finding is provisional. That said, if science is the study of the causes and effects of reality (generally through an empirical method) then the only things that are outside of science are those things which are not part of reality? In principal, the only things that are outside of science's scope are those things which either are not, or have no, effects; are there any?
Naturalism
Scientific materialism - we have natural things occurring, we can detect and measure those things and draw conclusions from them that are consistent with further activity. It's already validated, practically. What takes it to naturalism is excluding the possibility of anything else; if the something else exists, it's also part of nature/reality, and then there isn't a differentiation between Naturalism and Scientism - if you want to posit that there's something that's both natural but not part of reality then that's going to take some doing... feasible, perhaps, but I'll wait to see if it's out there.
O.
-
A Laddie on another thread has said that beliefs should have sound reasons so
sound reasons for the following if you please...…
Materialism
Physicalism
Empiricism
Scientism
Naturalism
Much obliged!
Aw Vlad - you forgot 'Stalanism': and that used to be one of your favourite terms of misrepresentation too.
-
Materialism - Is there any reason to believe there is anything else?
Physicalism - My computer's definition of this is almost identical to materialism. What pertinent differences do you think there are?
Empiricism - where else do we get knowledge from?
Scientism - my computer has two definitions: "thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists" and "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques." Which one do you mean?
Naturalism - there's no evidence that the supernatural exists
-
there's so much wrong with that, I can't motivate myself to interact with you on it!
Already you've demonstrated a bit too much interaction...…...This post for example
-
Depends on what you mean by some of the terms, but...
It works?
Do people have a philosophical 'belief' in materialism? I suspect that the consistent, reliable evidence of scientific enquiry that follows on from a materialist assumption is validation that it's a pragmatic way to operate, but in the main I think people accept that materialism is likely given the lack of any reliable evidence for anything else.
I've never heard of 'physicalism' before; looking it up it seems like a specific variation on materialism, and where it's accepted I'd guess it's accepted on the same basis.
Empiricism isn't a belief, it's a methodology - it's still used because it's effective. I accept there are probably some people that try to ideologize it - probably into something approaching materialism - but that's not what it is.
Just a derogatory term form a materialist, in most of the instances I've seen it used. It's not inherently justifiable from an ideological point, for much the same reasons as materialism - science is founded on the principal that any given finding is provisional. That said, if science is the study of the causes and effects of reality (generally through an empirical method) then the only things that are outside of science are those things which are not part of reality? In principal, the only things that are outside of science's scope are those things which either are not, or have no, effects; are there any?
Scientific materialism - we have natural things occurring, we can detect and measure those things and draw conclusions from them that are consistent with further activity. It's already validated, practically. What takes it to naturalism is excluding the possibility of anything else; if the something else exists, it's also part of nature/reality, and then there isn't a differentiation between Naturalism and Scientism - if you want to posit that there's something that's both natural but not part of reality then that's going to take some doing... feasible, perhaps, but I'll wait to see if it's out there.
O.
Shocking lack of philosophical awareness here.
You drag science in under false pretences on a number of occasions. Science isn't a belief. The things on my list can all carry the word ontological or metaphysical in front of them.
Your justification of materialism just throbs with the circularity of the argument for it.
-
Shocking lack of philosophical awareness here.
On the other hand your self awareness is clearly improving.
You drag science in under false pretences on a number of occasions. Science isn't a belief.
Very good. We've been telling you that science isn't a belief for years. Well done for finally getting it. (It's a process btw.)
The things on my list can all carry the word ontological or metaphysical in front of them.
Good for them. Now: so what?
Your justification of materialism just throbs with the circularity of the argument for it.
Materialism needs no justification. Materialism is the idea that the physical world is all there is. We observe the physical world, we don't observe anything else. It's for the people who assert that there is more than just the physical world to justify their assertions.
-
Shocking lack of philosophical awareness here.
Philosophy is a living field - if you wanted the classical takes, go look at the classics.
You drag science in under false pretences on a number of occasions.
You put 'scientism' smack in the middle... how is that me dragging science in? Science, and the scientific method that has led us to the body of work that comprises it, is our most reliable means of determining anything about the reality we find ourselves in; to exclude it because of some obscure ideological want seems nonsensical to me.
Science isn't a belief.
It's almost as though I said that myself...
The things on my list can all carry the word ontological or metaphysical in front of them.
Whoop-de-do.
Your justification of materialism just throbs with the circularity of the argument for it.
And yet it still has evidence behind it, whilst other purely metaphysical ideologies not only fail to self-sustain in the face of the provisional nature of human understanding, but they also fail to have any evidentiary support as well....
O.
-
Materialism - Is there any reason to believe there is anything else?
Physicalism - My computer's definition of this is almost identical to materialism. What pertinent differences do you think there are?
Empiricism - where else do we get knowledge from?
Scientism - my computer has two definitions: "thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists" and "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques." Which one do you mean?
Naturalism - there's no evidence that the supernatural exists
Your answer for materialism is not sound reason for believing in it
Empiricism the method is fine. Empiricism the belief is not established by the method.
Naturalism. You are making a circular argument.
-
Materialism - Is there any reason to believe there is anything else?
Physicalism - My computer's definition of this is almost identical to materialism. What pertinent differences do you think there are?
Empiricism - where else do we get knowledge from?
Scientism - my computer has two definitions: "thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists" and "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques." Which one do you mean?
Naturalism - there's no evidence that the supernatural exists
Your answer for materialism is not sound reason for believing in it
Empiricism the method is fine. Empiricism the belief is not established by the method.
Naturalism. You are making a circular argument.
-
On the other hand your self awareness is clearly improving.
Very good. We've been telling you that science isn't a belief for years. Well done for finally getting it. (It's a process btw.)
Good for them. Now: so what?
Materialism needs no justification. Materialism is the idea that the physical world is all there is. We observe the physical world, we don't observe anything else. It's for the people who assert that there is more than just the physical world to justify their assertions.
You are wrong about my attitude to science which I have always believed is a tool or method but never a belief. You obviously cant come across a religionist without seeing a stereotype unreasonable fundy.
Your statement on materialism is just the same circular argument you made before. We observe empirically therefore empiricism.
There are other problems with materialism. If all objects observed are contingent what is necessary. If you say matter then how did that come about?
Popped out of nothing? That isnt susceltible to scientific investigation.
Around for ever? That cant be scientifically susceptible.
It seems therefore that tbe natural is only here because of non naturalistic reasons.
-
Philosophy is a living field - if you wanted the classical takes, go look at the classics.
You put 'scientism' smack in the middle... how is that me dragging science in? Science, and the scientific method that has led us to the body of work that comprises it, is our most reliable means of determining anything about the reality we find ourselves in; to exclude it because of some obscure ideological want seems nonsensical to me.
It's almost as though I said that myself...
Whoop-de-do.
And yet it still has evidence behind it, whilst other purely metaphysical ideologies not only fail to self-sustain in the face of the provisional nature of human understanding, but they also fail to have any evidentiary support as well....
O.
You obviously mistake philosophy for science. Philosophy doesnt update like science. Thats just you making the fallacy of modernity.
I have nothing against science. You dont seem to understand its limits.
As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist. Or that matter is all there is.
-
Your answer for materialism is not sound reason for believing in it
I didn't provide an answer on materialism. I asked a question, which you so far failed to answer.
Empiricism the method is fine. Empiricism the belief is not established by the method.
Where else can we get knowledge other than through our senses?
Naturalism. You are making a circular argument.
Nope.
The natural world exists.We can see it, we can touch it. You're the one arguing that there is something more than the natural world. You are the one who needs to provide some evidence that the non natural exists, not me.
-
You obviously mistake philosophy for science.
I obviously don't.
Philosophy doesnt update like science. Thats just you making the fallacy of modernity.
Really? So everyone just reads, what, Plato and stops?
I have nothing against science. You dont seem to understand its limits.
You'll have to point out the bit where I over-reached on the science.
As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist. Or that matter is all there is.
Now who's failing to appreciate how science works? Science doesn't disprove; science presumes the absence, until sufficient evidence is presented to accept. You want spirits, demonstrate spirits - until then, spirits are in the drawer with the Leprechauns and yetis.
O.
-
You obviously mistake philosophy for science. Philosophy doesnt update like science. Thats just you making the fallacy of modernity.
Science is a branch of philosophy.
As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist.
You need to provide some evidence that spirit does exist before anybody is going to get too excited about analysing it scientifically.
-
You obviously mistake philosophy for science. Philosophy doesnt update like science. Thats just you making the fallacy of modernity.
Of course it does - I'm sure that in various academic establishments, and of course in assorted armchairs, there are philosophers busy philosophising right now.
I have nothing against science. You dont seem to understand its limits.
The people most likely to agree with you, Vlad, are scientists themselves.
As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist. Or that matter is all there is.
Nice to see the NPF getting a run out.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy.
You need to provide some evidence that spirit does exist before anybody is going to get too excited about analysing it scientifically.
Not sure about science being a branch of philosophy. Perhaps you can justify that.
Me providing evidence for spirit isnt relevent to this thread. How science can do it....or fail to do it....is relevant.
Science cannot say one way or another because science is just methodological materialism.
-
I obviously don't.
Really? So everyone just reads, what, Plato and stops?
You'll have to point out the bit where I over-reached on the science.
Now who's failing to appreciate how science works? Science doesn't disprove; science presumes the absence, until sufficient evidence is presented to accept. You want spirits, demonstrate spirits - until then, spirits are in the drawer with the Leprechauns and yetis.
O.
You can add competing philosophies and that is about it.
Science is methodological materialism.
-
Of course it does - I'm sure that in various academic establishments, and of course in assorted armchairs, there are philosophers busy philosophising right now.
The people most likely to agree with you, Vlad, are scientists themselves.
Nice to see the NPF getting a run out.
Once again Gordon NPF goes like this.......
You cannot prove one way or another whether it exists
Therefore it exists. No one is claiming that.
All I am saying is that Jeremy in particular seems to be saying Science doesnt do nonmaterial so it doesnt exist. After all materialism which he says doesnt need justifying is the belief that only material things exist.
That sounds more like NPF to me.
-
Not sure about science being a branch of philosophy. Perhaps you can justify that.
Learn some history. Before the time of Galileo and Newton, there was really no distinction between science and philosophy. In fact, Newton would not have recognised the term scientist. People like him were called natural philosophers.
Me providing evidence for spirit isnt relevent to this thread.
Yes it is.
-
All I am saying is that Jeremy in particular seems to be saying Science doesnt do nonmaterial so it doesnt exist.
I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm saying the material exists and there is no point in hypothesising anything else like "spirit" because there is no evidence for it.
-
Materialism needs no justification. Materialism is the idea that the physical world is all there is.
Case against you.
An empiricist of the utmost kind.
-
You can add competing philosophies and that is about it.
That's about it... I'm sure everyone since Plato is relieved that you've given them permission to grow the field.
Science is methodological materialism.
Science can be viewed as methodological materialism, or applied empiricism or any number of other things. That neither invalid its nor limits it.
O.
-
Vlad,
A Laddie on another thread has said that beliefs should have sound reasons so
sound reasons for the following if you please...…
Materialism
Physicalism
Empiricism
Scientism
Naturalism
Much obliged!
Do you mean the actual meanings of these terms, or your misunderstandings/misrepresentations of them?
-
That's about it... I'm sure everyone since Plato is relieved that you've given them permission to grow the field.
Science can be viewed as methodological materialism, or applied empiricism or any number of other things. That neither invalid its nor limits it.
O.
Of course it does....it limits it to material.
-
Once again Gordon NPF goes like this.......
You cannot prove one way or another whether it exists
Therefore it exists. No one is claiming that.
Not exactly: your 'one way or another' bit isn't the NPF.
The NPF applies when there is a clear attempt to shift the burden of proof on the basis that it can't be shown that 'x' doesn't exist - a bit like when you said "As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist"
-
Vlad,
Do you mean the actual meanings of these terms, or your misunderstandings/misrepresentations of them?
If you think you have sound reasons for these philosophies Hillside you go right on ahead......
-
Not exactly: your 'one way or another' bit isn't the NPF.
The NPF applies when there is a clear attempt to shift the burden of proof on the basis that it can't be shown that 'x' doesn't exist - a bit like when you said "As for materialism what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist"
Utterly wrong.
-
Utterly wrong.
How so?
-
Vlad,
If you think you have sound reasons for these philosophies Hillside you go right on ahead......
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Your standard operating procedure when given the reasons is to complain that they fail to satisfy your straw men versions of these things. Start with what they actually mean and you'll be told which are justifiable and which aren't, and why. Play your usual games and you'll just waste everyone's time.
-
Of course it does....it limits it to material.
That's only a limit if you presume there's something more than material...
O.
-
Outy,
That's only a limit if you presume there's something more than material...
Ah, the problem Vlad always runs away from. Mind yourself on that swinging door as he exits post haste...
-
That's only a limit if you presume there's something more than material...
O.
I think its more about presuming there isnt.
Yo may take the line that we dont know one way or the other. That removes the circularity of the materialist argument.
-
How so?
The NPF is when you say
You cannot disprove THEREFORE its true.
You are calling NPF on just the first part of that.
-
The NPF is when you say
You cannot disprove THEREFORE its true.
You are calling NPF on just the first part of that.
It is often the case though that when the NPF is used that 'x' might exist is implied, else why would you mention 'spirit' on the basis that "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist"
After all, you could just have easily said along the lines of 'spirit' being out of scope for science: but you didn't, and you strayed into NPF territory.
-
Vlad,
I think its more about presuming there isnt.
Flat wrong as always. Finding there to be no good reasons to think there is something is not the same thing as presuming it doesn't exist. There are many conjectures I find no good reasons for thinking to be true - your god and leprechauns for example - but I cannot say definitively that neither exists.
Then again, you knew that already didn't you you straw manning scamp what with the countless times it's ben explained to you.
Yo may take the line that we dont know one way or the other. That removes the circularity of the materialist argument.
Only if you rely on your straw man misrepresentation of "materialism".
-
Vlad,
Flat wrong as always. Finding there to be no good reasons to think there is something is not the same thing as presuming it doesn't exist. There are many conjectures I find no good reasons for thinking to be true - your god and leprechauns for example - but I cannot say definitively that neither exists.
Then again, you knew that already didn't you you straw manning scamp what with the countless times it's ben explained to you.
Only if you rely on your straw man misrepresentation of "materialism".
Im wondering if any of that is relevent to the thread.
-
Vlad,
It fails to account for the limits to methodological materialism in the explanation of matter which it is unable to investigate.
And a welcome return to our old friend the god of the gaps. It's been a while.
Now all you have to do is to explain what "explanation of matter" methodological materialism could not in principle explain, and why...
...cue tumbleweed.
-
Vlad,
Im wondering if any of that is relevent to the thread.
No you're not. You know exactly why it's relevant - it explains the game you're trying to play by starting the thread in the first place. Can anyone justify the straw men versions of various "philosophies" you re-define for your own ends? No. Can various of their actually meanings be justified? Yes, easily.
-
It is often the case though that when the NPF is used that 'x' might exist is implied, else why would you mention 'spirit' on the basis that "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist"
After all, you could just have easily said along the lines of 'spirit' being out of scope for science: but you didn't, and you strayed into NPF territory.
Sorry ........X might exist.........is not the same as therefore x exists.
-
Vlad,
No you're not. You know exactly why it's relevant - it explains the game you're trying to play by starting the thread in the first place. Can anyone justify the straw men versions of various "philosophies" you re-define for your own ends? No. Can various of their actually meanings be justified? Yes, easily.
Hillside.....focus......thread title and opening post......now good......sound reasons for any of the philosophies listed......your call, your interpretation....otherwise I wonder why youre on this thread.
-
Sorry ........X might exist.........is not the same as therefore x exists.
So, are you saying that 'spirit' might exist and, therefore, there is the possibility it might not exist?
I'm still puzzled that you would express yourself in the form "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" if you weren't implying that there may a case for 'spirit' even if you consider the investigation of that to be outwith the scope of science.
We have some excellent fallacy-spotters around right now and be interested in their views as to whether or not "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" is an example of the NPF.
-
Vlad,
Sorry ........X might exist.........is not the same as therefore x exists.
And nor is it the same as thinking that X is more likely to exist than Y or Z are likely to exist when X is "god", Y is leprechauns and Z is Jack Frost.
-
Vlad,
Hillside.....focus......thread title and opening post......now good......sound reasons for any of the philosophies listed......your call, your interpretation....otherwise I wonder why youre on this thread.
No, you focus. These "philosophies" have various meanings that are consistently described and codified. There's no interpretation required. What you do though is to re-define them for your own purposes, then complain that the justifications you're given for their actual meanings do not justify your straw man versions of their meanings. We've been here before remember?
Think of this as public service warning for those who would answer in good faith when you started the thread in anything but good faith.
-
So, are you saying that 'spirit' might exist and, therefore, there is the possibility it might not exist?
I'm still puzzled that you would express yourself in the form "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" if you weren't implying that there may a case for 'spirit' even if you consider the investigation of that to be outwith the scope of science.
We have some excellent fallacy-spotters around right now and be interested in their views as to whether or not "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" is an example of the NPF.
Good luck with your appeal Gordon.
Could I also point out that for materialism to be right there would either have to be a scientific experiment to disprove spirit or one to prove materialism.
-
Vlad,
Could I also point out that for materialism to be right there would either have to be a scientific experiment to disprove spirit or one to prove materialism.
You could, but you'd be completely wrong on both counts if you did.
-
Good luck with your appeal Gordon.
We shall see.
Could I also point out that for materialism to be right there would either have to be a scientific experiment to disprove spirit or one to prove materialism.
You seem to becoming more and more confused: what type of experiment would you envisage would produce the disproof and/or proof you suggest? I suppose you could advance the point you mention, but if I were you I'd be wary of assuming that what can't be defined with any degree of precision in the first place can be either proved or disproved.
-
We shall see.
You seem to becoming more and more confused: what type of experiment would you envisage would produce the disproof and/or proof you suggest? I suppose you could advance the point you mention, but if I were you I'd be wary of assuming that what can't be defined with any degree of precision in the first place can be either proved or disproved.
All I am saying here is that for materialism to be correct it must be surely established by methodological materialism i.e.science. where is this experiment?
-
Vlad,
No, you focus. These "philosophies" have various meanings that are consistently described and codified. There's no interpretation required. What you do though is to re-define them for your own purposes, then complain that the justifications you're given for their actual meanings do not justify your straw man versions of their meanings. We've been here before remember?
Think of this as public service warning for those who would answer in good faith when you started the thread in anything but good faith.
Really?
It looks more like another self advertisement for your turdpolishing prowess to me.
-
All I am saying here is that for materialism to be correct it must be surely established by methodological materialism i.e.science. where is this experiment?
I think you mean methodological naturalism, Vlad, and what particular experiment do you have in mind?
-
Vlad,
Really?
Yes.
It looks more like another self advertisement for your turdpolishing prowess to me.
No it doesn't. What it looks like to you is you having your proverbial handed to you in a sling, hence your typically evasive reply. If you persist with your own personal redefinitions of terms like "materialism" then, as ever, you're just wasting everyone's time.
-
I think you mean methodological naturalism, Vlad, and what particular experiment do you have in mind?
My contention ......not being a materialist is that there isnt one.
-
Vlad,
My contention ......not being a materialist is that there isnt one.
That's right. There's neither cogent reasoning nor experiments that would justify your personal redefinition of the term "materialism". How could there be?
-
Vlad,
Yes.
No it doesn't. What it looks like to you is you having your proverbial handed to you in a sling, hence your typically evasive reply. If you persist with your own personal redefinitions of terms like "materialism" then, as ever, you're just wasting everyone's time.
I have not as far as I can see put any definition to any of the philosophies on this thread.
-
Vlad,
I have not as far as I can see put any definition to any of the philosophies on this thread.
Despite being asked to do so. Why is that?
See, once you have form as long as your arm for straw manning it follows you around. You also by the way gave the game away by talking about dis/proofs in the context of materialism. Materialism requires neither.
-
Vlad,
That's right. There's neither cogent reasoning nor experiments that would justify your personal redefinition of the term "materialism". How could there be?
I have not offered a strict definition that people must adhere to........thats why I said to you your call your interpretation......that means whatever you choose not I.
So either participate in the thread or find something else to do....in other words stop wasting time.
-
Vlad,
I have not offered a strict definition that people must adhere to........
Then what are you asking people to justify – the actual meanings or your personal redefinitions of the meanings?
…thats why I said to you your call your interpretation......
Bullshit. There are no “interpretations”: there’s the actual meanings or there’s whatever dicking around with the actual meanings you’re hiding behind by not answering a straight question.
…that means whatever you choose not I.
No it doesn’t. If I “choose” the actual meanings you will reply that the justifications do not support your straw man versions. Think pigeon knocking over the chess pieces, crapping on the board and then flying off to claim its victory. We’ve been here before remember?
So either participate in the thread or find something else to do....in other words stop wasting time.
The irony! No-one can participate in good faith when the question isn’t asked in good faith. Explain what you intend to ask, or stop polluting this mb. Your choice.
-
Vlad,
Then what are you asking people to justify – the actual meanings or your personal redefinitions of the meanings?
Bullshit. There are no “interpretations”: there’s the actual meanings or there’s whatever dicking around with the actual meanings you’re hiding behind by not answering a straight question.
No it doesn’t. If I “choose” the actual meanings you will reply that the justifications do not support your straw man versions. Think pigeon knocking over the chess pieces, crapping on the board and then flying off to claim its victory. We’ve been here before remember?
The irony! No-one can participate in good faith when the question isn’t asked in good faith. Explain what you intend to ask, or stop polluting this mb. Your choice.
Its quite simple Hillside ..........Sound reasons for belief in one,some or all philosophies listed.......thank you.
-
My contention ......not being a materialist is that there isnt one.
In that case why did you say earlier "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" - you seem confused.
-
In that case why did you say earlier "what scientific test is there to prove that say spirit does not exist" - you seem confused.
For materialism to be correct science has to show it is correct.
The materialist has to believe there is one so it is reasonable to ask what that might be since the non materialist is merely interested and not dependent on it .
-
I think its more about presuming there isnt.
It's a reasonable assumption that there isn't since nobody has ever provided any good evidence to suggest there is.
-
It's a reasonable assumption that there isn't since nobody has ever provided any good evidence to suggest there is.
What physical evidence could there be?
How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?
-
What physical evidence could there be?
How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?
It doesn't. But then that isn't the claim. You are lying about that. As you ever did.
Do you have a method to establish your claims? You know the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times but never provided?
I will predict that you will post a lie, an idiocy, and a misrepresentation. And if you do, I further predict that I will ignore you because you are not capable of an honest discussion.
-
It doesn't. But then that isn't the claim. You are lying about that. As you ever did.
Do you have a method to establish your claims? You know the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times but never provided?
I will predict that you will post a lie, an idiocy, and a misrepresentation. And if you do, I further predict that I will ignore you because you are not capable of an honest discussion.
My claims are irrelevent to this thread.
If you are not prepared to give sound reasons for any of the philosophies on the list then dont you think you are wasting yohr time and mine?
-
What physical evidence could there be?
Why did you change the word "good" to the word "physical"? You tell me what evidence you have and I'll tell you whether it is good or not and if not, why it is not good evidence.
How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?
Who said science supports the contention that all there is is the material world? I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to study the non material world with science provided you can formulate falsifiable hypotheses about the non material.
-
For materialism to be correct science has to show it is correct.
Science is a matter of methodological naturalism, and I suspect what you'd really like to do here is to trap people into making claims of philosophical naturalism: on that score you'll be disappointed, since nobody here is naive enough to do that.
The materialist has to believe there is one so it is reasonable to ask what that might be since the non materialist is merely interested and not dependent on it .
I've no idea what a 'materialist' believes since I don't know anyone who identifies as such - you must get bored flying the same old kites.
-
Vlad,
Its quite simple Hillside ..........Sound reasons for belief in one,some or all philosophies listed.......thank you.
No it isn’t. The sound reasons for “some or all of the philosophies listed” have been given to you many times in the past. What hasn’t been given to you nor can be given to you are sound reasons for your fundamental misrepresentations of what these “philosophies” actually entail. That’s the trolling you’re doing here – asking an apparently straightforward question while all the while fully intending to waste everyone’s time by criticising the answers for not justifying your personal re-definitions.
What’s simple is this: justification of materialism. What isn’t simple is justification of whatever reinvention of the term “materialism” you have in your head today because you fancy amusing yourself with a wind up. Sorry, but you’ve been rumbled. Deal with it.
-
Vlad,
My claims are irrelevent to this thread.
Not if your claims are redefinitions of the terms you’re asking to be justified they’re not.
If you are not prepared to give sound reasons for any of the philosophies on the list then dont you think you are wasting yohr time and mine?
That’s dishonest (who'd have thought it eh?). People here are quite prepared to give sound reasons for various of the “philosophies” you listed. What they cannot and will not do is to justify your personal re-definitions of these terms, not least because – despite having been asked more than once already – you refuse to tell us what they are.
As I just told you – you’ve been rumbled old son.
-
Vlad,
How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?
Science doesn't make that contention. Nor does materialism. That's just you trolling remember?
-
I think its more about presuming there isnt.
Yo may take the line that we dont know one way or the other. That removes the circularity of the materialist argument.
Why would you presume there is something more than can be measured or detected? Why would you presume at all? You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.
O.
-
Why would you presume there is something more than can be measured or detected? Why would you presume at all? You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.
O.
You never get anywhere with Vlad he just goes around in circles, it's pointless communicating with him on most things.
ippy.
-
Hi ipster,
You never get anywhere with Vlad he just goes around in circles, it's pointless communicating with him on most things.
Yes, he’s basically a troll. No matter how many times you explain what “science”, “materialism” etc entail and no matter how many times you give him citations for their proper meanings he just returns the same straw men misrepresentations (“How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” etc) and then complains that the justifications don’t validate the straw men of his own devising. What he gets from it is anyone’s guess but there it is nonetheless. Best not to feed him I think.
-
Hi ipster,
Yes, he’s basically a troll. No matter how many times you explain what “science”, “materialism” etc entail and no matter how many times you give him citations for their proper meanings he just returns the same straw men misrepresentations (“How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” etc) and then complains that the justifications don’t validate the straw men of his own devising. What he gets from it is anyone’s guess but there it is nonetheless. Best not to feed him I think.
Yes I agree with you Blue, but I have to say although it may look as though I don't like the posters where I fundamentally don't agree with their views I have that familiar fellow feeling with all that post here, including people I seldom have anything in common with.
The odd few rather nasty comments anyone gets will always go along with the territory on any forum, just as it is that there'll always be the odd few that seem unable to do anything more than ramble on about nothing in particular as I'm sure I must do from time to time but the closer it gets to saying nothing in particular for all of the time it gets the less it's worth bothering with these posters.
If we all saw the world through the same eyes it wouldn't be worth getting our ten pennyworth of say on the forum even though most that don't agree with me whilst they're not recognising how wrong they are, I still enjoy the company of all of you motley lot here on this forum,
Regards to all, ippy.
-
You never get anywhere with Vlad he just goes around in circles, it's pointless communicating with him on most things.
ippy.
I enjoy it. That makes it not pointless.
-
I enjoy it. That makes it not pointless.
Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.
Regards, ippy.
-
Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.
Regards, ippy.
Keeps you fit though.
-
Keeps you fit though.
Yer that too!
ippy.
-
Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.
Regards, ippy.
Punch bag?.....Punch bag?
I wonder what JeremyP thinks of that?Keeps you fit though.
Oh dear, what kind of people have I come across...…..time to leave I think.
-
Vlad,
Oh dear, what kind of people have I come across...…..time to leave I think.
You could do that. Alternatively you could finally engage honestly with the issues under discussion. Maybe start by not personally redefining commonplace terms so as to complain that no-one can justify your straw men versions of them?
It’s up to you though.
-
Why would you presume there is something more than can be measured or detected? Why would you presume at all? You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.
O.
I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.
-
Vlad,
I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments.
No, because you have an a priori problem of the incoherence of the term “non-material”. Until you can explain what it is, how you’d investigate the claim etc it’s just white noise. You may as well say that there may or may not be ijh97867y.
Assuming that you could to that however, you’d still be stuck with the burden of proof to demonstrate it. That is, with finding some means to take your from the possible to the probable – which is when you always vanish.
That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.
There isn’t any.
-
You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.
O.
I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating. Why 'operate' like you suggest? In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here. You don't want admit a to a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.
I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one. In other words in matters of material.....I am methodologically materialist.
Is that different from your position?
If so....how is it different.
-
I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.
There isn’t any.
Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.
-
Vlad,
I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating.
No it doesn’t because “philosophical materialism” isn’t your straw man version of it.
Why 'operate' like you suggest? In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here. You don't want admit a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.
No, because the “why” question is incoherent unless you can demonstrate first a “something” to decide that there is a purposive why. That’s you dong actual circular reasoning – “there is a god because the universe turned out the way god intended it to”.
I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one.
Probably not true. You’re likely to be a philosophical materialist (actual meaning), but not a philosophical materialist (Vlad’s straw man meaning). So are most people.
Your big mistake/lie here by the way is trying to make “philosophical materialism” mean something like “physicalism”. That’s why you post misunderstandings/misrepresentations like “How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” (and then run away when you're found out).
But then again you knew that already didn’t you what with it having been explained so many times.
-
Vlad,
Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.
And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine. That’s just another of your straw men remember?
Can you have forgotten already that not long ago I chased you all over this mb trying to get you to answer a perfectly simple question about how anyone should distinguish your claim “god” from anyone else’s faith claim about anything else only for you endlessly to duck and dive to avoid answering (and indeed that you refused to tell us even why you’d never answer)? I don’t recall saying “material evidence only”. Do you?
-
Vlad,
And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine. That’s just another of your straw men remember?
Can you have forgotten already that not long ago I chased you all over this mb trying to get you to answer a perfectly simple question about how anyone should distinguish your claim “god” from anyone else’s faith claim about anything else only for you endlessly to duck and dive to avoid answering (and indeed that you refused to tell us even why you’d never answer)? I don’t recall saying “material evidence only”. Do you?
Blue, have you tried banging your head on the keyboard yet, you're likely to get far more out of that than you'll ever get from you know who?
regards, ippy.
-
Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.
Actually the dodge is you attaching the word “material” to it. Nobody is asking you for material evidence, we are asking you for evidence. You can give us any evidence for the non material you deem appropriate and then I Will tell you whether I consider it good evidence and why not, if not.
-
Blue, have you tried banging your head on the keyboard yet, you're likely to get far more out of that than you'll ever get from you know who?
regards, ippy.
Yes ok. We all know it’s like getting a good argument out of a Brexiteer. No need to keep banging on about why you consider this thread a waste of time.
-
Actually the dodge is you attaching the word “material” to it. Nobody is asking you for material evidence, we are asking you for evidence. You can give us any evidence for the non material you deem appropriate and then I Will tell you whether I consider it good evidence and why not, if not.
Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.
You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.
Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.
-
Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.
You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.
Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.
Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.
-
Vlad,
And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine.
That's a bit vague and flip and I'm sure calculated to make your particular gallery sigh and swoon but how are you defining guess here?
If not material evidence then what do you type of evidence do you mean?
-
Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.
You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.
Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.
I wasn’t asking you a question on theism and Christianity, I was asking you a question on the non material which is directly related to this thread.
-
Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.
This is not about what I believe though it is merely an appeal for sound reasons pertaining to the list provided and so appeals for me to start talking about atheism are going to be disappointed.
If you can't make good reason then why are you on this thread busy trying to divert attention away. Embarrased……..by any chance.
You are at liberty to open a similar thread to this about theism if you wish...….but then I think you might be a bit scared of doing so and heaven forbid what place would a thread about religion have on a religion and ethics message board.
-
I wasn’t asking you a question on theism and Christianity, I was asking you a question on the non material which is directly related to this thread.
I don't see it on the list or in the appeal for good reasons of it.
I don't consider, '' well, give us a good reason for believing in the non material '' a good reason for believing in philosophical materialism.
You may.....and maybe you can persuade me on this thread why it is a good reason for.
-
Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.
What do you mean by evidence....material evidence?
-
This is not about what I believe though it is merely an appeal for sound reasons pertaining to the list provided and so appeals for me to start talking about atheism are going to be disappointed.
If you can't make good reason then why are you on this thread busy trying to divert attention away. Embarrased……..by any chance.
You are at liberty to open a similar thread to this about theism if you wish...….but then I think you might be a bit scared of doing so and heaven forbid what place would a thread about religion have on a religion and ethics message board.
Don't be silly, Vlad: I haven't mentioned theism, or indeed atheism, but your thread title includes the trio of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" so I'm surprised you're so coy about the relevance of evidence.
-
What do you mean by evidence....material evidence?
Just 'evidence', Vlad, which when presented can then be scrutinised.
-
I don't see it on the list or in the appeal for good reasons of it.
I don't consider, '' well, give us a good reason for believing in the non material '' a good reason for believing in philosophical materialism.
You may.....and maybe you can persuade me on this thread why it is a good reason for.
You were given good reasons. Then you disputed them and so this is part of the response to your disputes.
-
Don't be silly, Vlad: I haven't mentioned theism, or indeed atheism, but your thread title includes the trio of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" so I'm surprised you're so coy about the relevance of evidence.
OK ''Show us the evidence for the non material'' isn't evidence for naturalism, materialism or empiricism'' is it.
For these to be true you would actually have to show me naturalism....not nature but naturalism and so forth.
Outrider mentioned measurement and I think observation. How then are we going to even begin observing and measuring naturalism, materialism and empiricism?
But then I suspect you know all of this.
-
Vlad,
Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.
You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.
Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.
Not even when the question goes to your fundamental misrepresentations of the philosophies you’re asking to be justified?
Why not?
Again: justifying the actual meanings of various of these terms is simple; justifying your straw men versions of them is impossible.
Capiche?
That's a bit vague and flip and I'm sure calculated to make your particular gallery sigh and swoon but how are you defining guess here?
It’s not vague and flip at all – it’s just catching you out in one of your various lies.
If not material evidence then what do you type of evidence do you mean?
Oh no you don’t sunshine. You’re the one asserting a non-material into existence, so it’s your job to provide a method to investigate the claim. Complaining that materialism only deals with the material doesn’t get you off that hook – if you think the methods of materialism can’t do it, then tell us what can. So far you’re epistemically in the same place as the Zeusists, the unicornists and the leprechaunists. If you don’t want to be there, tell us why.
This is not about what I believe though it is merely an appeal for sound reasons pertaining to the list provided and so appeals for me to start talking about atheism are going to be disappointed.
But as you keep flat lying about what these terms mean you’re never going to get justifications for your own straw men reinventions remember?
If you can't make good reason then why are you on this thread busy trying to divert attention away.
Most of us can make good justifications for what they actually mean; none of us can make good justifications for your straw men versions of them. That’s just the trolling you’re doing remember?
Embarrased……..by any chance.
No, but you certainly should be.
You are at liberty to open a similar thread to this about theism if you wish...….but then I think you might be a bit scared of doing so and heaven forbid what place would a thread about religion have on a religion and ethics message board.
No need. This thread is fine. Now all you have to do is to stop lying about the terms you’re asking for justifications for and we’ll be away. You’ve already given the game away (or royally fucked up) by asking a deeply stupid or deeply dishonest question about science, so now’s your opportunity to wipe the slate clean and start again.
Aside from spoiling your trolling fun, what’s stopping you?
OK ''Show us the evidence for the non material'' isn't evidence for naturalism, materialism or empiricism'' is it.
No, it’s just asking you for a means to distinguish your claims from utter bollocks. So far at least, you’ve suggested no such means.
For these to be true you would actually have to show me naturalism....not nature but naturalism and so forth.
Which is easy provided, but only if you stop lying about what these terms actually mean.
Outrider mentioned measurement and I think observation. How then are we going to even begin observing and measuring naturalism, materialism and empiricism?
Gibberish.
But then I suspect you know all of this.
Much better than you do it seems. So, are you going to stop lying and finally show some honesty or is the lure of more trolling just too hard for you to resist?
-
Just 'evidence', Vlad, which when presented can then be scrutinised.
I said i'm not about to run looking for evidence for theism on this thread.
But if you like you can present evidence for materialism, naturalism, empiricism which we can then scrutinise.
Good luck with that Gordon but I think may have met your Khartoum on this one if you'll excuse the pun.
-
Vlad,
Not even when the question goes to your fundamental misrepresentations of the philosophies you’re asking to be justified?
Why not?
Again: justifying the actual meanings of various of these terms is simple; justifying your straw men versions of them is impossible.
Capiche?
It’s not vague and flip at all – it’s just catching you out in one of your various lies.
Oh no you don’t sunshine. You’re the one asserting a non-material into existence, so it’s your job to provide a method to investigate the claim. Complaining that materialism only deals with the material doesn’t get you off that hook – if you think the methods of materialism can’t do it, then tell us what can. So far you’re epistemically in the same place as the Zeusists, the unicornists and the leprechaunists. If you don’t want to be there, tell us why.
But as you keep flat lying about what these terms mean you’re never going to get justifications for your own straw men reinventions remember?
Most of can make good reasons for what they actually mean; none of us can make good reasons for your straw man versions of them. That’s just the trolling you’re doing remember?
No, but you certainly should be.
No need. This thread is fine. Now all you have to do is to stop lying about the terms you’re asking for justifications for and we’ll be away. You’ve already given the game away (and royally fucked up) by asking a deeply stupid or deeply dishonest question about science, so now’s your opportunity to wipe the slate clean and start again.
Aside from spoiling your trolling fun, what’s stopping you?
No, it’s just asking you for a means to distinguish your claims from utter bollocks. So far at least, you’ve suggested no such means.
Which is easy provided, but only if you stop lying about what these terms actually mean.
Gibberish.
Much better than you do it seems. So, are you going to stop lying and finally show some honesty or is the lure of more trolling just too hard for you to resist?
That's all very well but theism, non materialism are not the subjects of the thread.
Provide natural evidence for philosophical naturalism
material evidence for philosophical materialism
and empirical evidence for empiricism.
Or a good argument for them which doesn't involve answering a question with a question would do.
-
OK ''Show us the evidence for the non material'' isn't evidence for naturalism, materialism or empiricism'' is it.
For these to be true you would actually have to show me naturalism....not nature but naturalism and so forth.
Outrider mentioned measurement and I think observation. How then are we going to even begin observing and measuring naturalism, materialism and empiricism?
But then I suspect you know all of this.
There are lots of ways, Vlad: that we have machines that can fly is evidence for your "naturalism, materialism,empiricism", involving stuff about the science behind lift, the design aspects involving materials and propulsion and all the data analysis and testing involved. I dare there are reasons that would be classed as "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" regarding, say, the sweeteners that some use instead of sugar, and no doubt there are a gazillion other examples of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism".
If there is stuff that doesn't fit these terms: the ones in your thread title, then what is needed is some form of comparable alternative by those who claim such stuff - which seems a reasonable request from those us who would prefer at least an attempt at precision.
-
Vlad,
I said i'm not about to run looking for evidence for theism on this thread.
More lying. No-one’s asked you for the evidence. What they’ve actually asked you for is an evidential method so as to distinguish your claims from guessing, bollocks, gibberish etc.
But if you like you can present evidence for materialism, naturalism, empiricism which we can then scrutinise.
Happily, just as soon as you stop lying about what these terms mean so as to complain that no-one can justify your straw men.
Good luck with that Gordon but I think may have met your Khartoum on this one if you'll excuse the pun.
No luck needed – simple reason and argument do the job quite readily.
-
Vlad,
That's all very well but theism, non materialism are not the subjects of the thread.
Multiple evasions noted, and it is the subject of this thread when it goes to your misrepresentations of these terms.
Provide natural evidence for philosophical naturalism
material evidence for philosophical materialism
and empirical evidence for empiricism.
Again? If you insist – all you have to do first is to stop lying about what they mean so as to have your trolling fun by complaining that no-one can justify your straw men versions and we’ll be ready to copy and paste the previous answers to you.
Or a good argument for them which doesn't involve answering a question with a question would do.
Not when the question back exposes the lying buried in your question it won’t.
-
There are lots of ways, Vlad: that we have machines that can fly is evidence for your "naturalism, materialism,empiricism", involving stuff about the science behind lift, the design aspects involving materials and propulsion and all the data analysis and testing involved. I dare there are reasons that would be classed as "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" regarding, say, the sweeteners that some use instead of sugar, and no doubt there are a gazillion other examples of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism".
If there is stuff that doesn't fit these terms: the ones in your thread title, that what is needed is some form of comparable alternative by those who claim such stuff - which seems a reasonable request from those us who would prefer at least an attempt at precision.
You are confusing science with the philosophical beliefs of naturalism, materialism and empiricism i'm afraid.
That planes fly is just evidence that if you understand the science and have the means you can make a plane that can fly.
Science was not on the list and only features in part as methodological materialism and we're all one of those.
If you don't like what Hillside has spun as my definitions of these things on the list...…….I haven't given them...…….. then feel free to use Wikipedia, Stanford encyclopedia or whatever
-
Vlad,
If you don't like what Hillside has spun as my definitions of these things on the list...…….
What “spun”? You consistently misrepresent what these terms mean despite having them explained to you, citations being given to you etc. The only spinning here is your own, so you can stop lying about that too.
I haven't given them...…
Yes you have, when you ask fundamentally mistaken or dishonest questions like “How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” you “give” them to us exactly whether you mean to or not.
” ….. then feel free to use Wikipedia, Stanford encyclopedia or whatever
We have, and we’ve given these citations to you too – and none of them justify your fundamental misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what these terms mean. Have you forgotten already the priceless time you gave me a citation from Wiki that you hadn’t bothered to read that turned out to say precisely the opposite of what you thought it said? Really though?
Let me put this in caps so you have no excuses for pretending you haven’t been told:
MOST OF US CAN JUSTIFY WHAT VARIOUS OF THESE TERMS ACTUALLY MEAN; NO-ONE CAN JUSTIFY YOUR STRAW MAN MISREPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT THEY MEAN.
Clear?
-
Vlad,
What “spun”? You consistently misrepresent what these terms mean despite having them explained to you, citations being given to you etc. The only spinning here is your own, so you can stop lying about that too.
Yes you have, when you ask fundamentally mistaken or dishonest questions like “How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” you “give” them to us exactly whether you mean to or not.
We have, and we’ve given these citations to you too – and none of them justify your fundamental misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what these terms mean. Have you forgotten already the priceless time you gave me a citation from Wiki that you hadn’t bothered to read that turned out to say precisely the opposite of what you thought it said? Really though?
Let me put this in caps so you have no excuses for pretending you haven’t been told:
MOST OF US CAN JUSTIFY WHAT VARIOUS OF THESE TERMS ACTUALLY MEAN; NO-ONE CAN JUSTIFY YOUR STRAW MAN MISREPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT THEY MEAN.
Clear?
It seems though they can't and you even can'ter.
-
Vlad,
It seems though they can't and you even can'ter.
"Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Rawhide!"
-
Vlad,
"Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Rawhide!"
Hillside's lost it.
-
You are confusing science with the philosophical beliefs of naturalism, materialism and empiricism i'm afraid.
That planes fly is just evidence that if you understand the science and have the means you can make a plane that can fly.
Science was not on the list and only features in part as methodological materialism and we're all one of those.
If you don't like what Hillside has spun as my definitions of these things on the list...…….I haven't given them...…….. then feel free to use Wikipedia, Stanford encyclopedia or whatever
Nope - the examples I gave are illustrations of the concept of methodological naturalism: being "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" in action, where experience suggests that these elements would apply to anything else that would be amenable to methodological naturalism, which no doubt includes things that as yet we don't have methods to investigate or even recognise. If not, then a method specific to anything else is needed,
Therefore, being par for the course, I assume you are referring your made-up straw-man versions of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" - you are, as usual, guilty of egregious equivocation, old chap.
-
Nope - the examples I gave are illustrations of the concept of methodological naturalism: being "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" in action, where experience suggests that these elements would apply to anything else that would be amenable to methodological naturalism, which no doubt includes things that as yet we don't have methods to investigate or even recognise. If not, then a method specific to anything else is needed,
Therefore, being par for the course, I assume you are referring your made-up straw-man versions of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" - you are, as usual, guilty of egregious equivocation, old chap.
What's wrong with this is that the thread asks for good reasons to believe in materialism, naturalism, empiricism.
Science or methodological naturalism, methodological materialism and methodological empiricism are NOT beliefs and therefore are not relevant answers to this thread (unless of course they can be used to justify the belief in the philosophical aspects)
What remains therefore are philosophical naturalism, philosophical materialism and
philosophical empiricism.
These are not straw men
They are beliefs. If you therefore wish to contribute to the thread do so. Otherwise I suggest you are wasting your time here.
-
What's wrong with this is that the thread asks for good reasons to believe in materialism, naturalism, empiricism.
Science or methodological naturalism, methodological materialism and methodological empiricism are NOT beliefs and therefore are not relevant answers to this thread (unless of course they can be used to justify the belief in the philosophical aspects)
What remains therefore are philosophical naturalism, philosophical materialism and
philosophical empiricism.
These are not straw men
They are beliefs. If you therefore wish to contribute to the thread do so. Otherwise I suggest you are wasting your time here.
You are trying here to move between 'reasons' and 'beliefs', since you seem desperate to claim that others here must in some sense 'believe' in philosophical naturalism. I fear it is you who is are wasting your time, since your regular interlocutors aren't that naive.
I can understand that there are good reasons why planes fly, via methodological naturalism, but only as far as the underlying method(s) provide justification since I also recognise that knowledge is provisional, and that there may be 'unknown unknowns' at play - so it would be foolish to hold a speculative belief such as philosophical naturalism.
Why you keep banging on about it is a mystery.
-
You are trying here to move between 'reasons' and 'beliefs', since you seem desperate to claim that others here must in some sense 'believe' in philosophical naturalism.
To me Outrider only owned up to operating as though only natural things existed..
Unless he is an automaton he must be motivated to operate like he says he is by an idea in which he is invested in.
In other words Gordon...…..a philosophical belief.
They don't engage, perhaps, because they know they cannot provide observation or measurement for a philosophies which demand that everything should be observable and measurable.
-
To me Outrider only owned up to operating as though only natural things existed..
Unless he is an automaton he must be motivated to operate like he says he is by an idea in which he is invested in.
In other words Gordon...…..a philosophical belief.
They don't engage, perhaps, because they know they cannot provide observation or measurement for a philosophies which demand that everything should be observable and measurable.
My reading is that Outrider noted that there are no good reasons to presume that non-natural things exist, since there are no methods that provide a basis to understand what a non-natural thing was in the first place - for example, on what basis would you even recognise such a thing?
Assuming I have understood Outrider correctly, this would be my view too.
-
My reading is that Outrider noted that there are no good reasons to presume that non-natural things exist, since there are no methods that provide a basis to understand what a non-natural thing was in the first place - for example, on what basis would you even recognise such a thing?
It would be something not spatio-temporal. It would not be subject to change. Perhaps something that would remain true whatever the physical conditions are.
Since it is not subject to physics it would not perhaps be observable.
Perhaps we could say that physics is ordered by it but not the other way round.
You see it is already possible to assign properties to the non material and this I move is sufficient to make questions like ''why would one even think there was more than the material'' frankly, a bit thick.
-
It would be something not spatio-temporal. It would not be subject to change. Perhaps something that would remain true whatever the physical conditions are.
Since it is not subject to physics it would not perhaps be observable.
Perhaps we could say that physics is ordered by it but not the other way round.
You see it is already possible to assign properties to the non material and this I move is sufficient to make questions like ''why would one even think there was more than the material'' frankly, a bit thick.
What is something that is not spatio temporal? Something that is, is by definition temporal, as 'is' is a temporal statement.
-
It would be something not spatio-temporal. It would not be subject to change. Perhaps something that would remain true whatever the physical conditions are.
On what basis would you be aware of this something? What does it mean to be "not spatio-temporal"? How would you characterise this thing?
Since it is not subject to physics it would not perhaps be observable.
So how would you know, as in having knowledge, that it was there at all?
Perhaps we could say that physics is ordered by it but not the other way round.
You just did - but what does this mean?
You see it is already possible to assign properties to the non material and this I move is sufficient to make questions like ''why would one even think there was more than the material'' frankly, a bit thick.
What do you mean by it being "possible to assign properties to the non-material" - perhaps an example might help, just to be sure we aren't descending in subjectivity?
I think that it is quite reasonable, and not at all "thick", to entertain the possibility of 'unknown unknowns' as a general principle. Even so, and there are copious examples of new knowledge coming along (along with the relevant methodologies), but that doesn't open the door to unduly speculative claims unless there is some underpinning approach that justifies the claim.
-
What is something that is not spatio temporal? Something that is, is by definition temporal, as 'is' is a temporal statement.
Really? what about being eternal....as some propose the universe to be?
-
Really? what about being eternal....as some propose the universe to be?
Still is a temporal claim.
-
On what basis would you be aware of this something? What does it mean to be "not spatio-temporal"? How would you characterise this thing?
So how would you know, as in having knowledge, that it was there at all?
You just did - but what does this mean?
What do you mean by it being "possible to assign properties to the non-material" - perhaps an example might help, just to be sure we aren't descending in subjectivity?
I think that it is quite reasonable, and not at all "thick", to entertain the possibility of 'unknown unknowns' as a general principle. Even so, and there are copious examples of new knowledge coming along (along with the relevant methodologies), but that doesn't open the door to unduly speculative claims unless there is some underpinning approach that justifies the claim.
I believe I have characterised it in the description I gave of it.
In terms of knowledge. That I know about it doesn't affect that things existence or otherwise does it?
There is a lot of talk in the scientificcommunity that Maths is the basis of reality and Maths would certainly fit the description I gave.
In view of this i'm not sure the question ''why would you think that there was more than the material'' is particularly an intelligent one.
-
Still is a temporal claim.
So are you saying that that renders eternal entities impossible?
-
So are you saying that that renders eternal entities impossible?
You are confused. You made a statement about something non spatio-temporal. How can a non spatio-temporal something be when being is a temporal claim?
-
You are confused. You made a statement about something non spatio-temporal. How can a non spatio-temporal something be when being is a temporal claim?
Non spatio temporal means that it cannot be pinned down to one place or time or if you like it is eternal and everywhere.
Secondly, can you give a citation that being is a temporal claim?
-
Non spatio temporal means that it cannot be pinned down to one place or time or if you like it is eternal and everywhere.
Secondly, can you give a citation that being is a temporal claim?
Nothing can be pinned down to one time. Indeed your inept attempt at a definition, which I will at least applaud because it is at least an attempt, as opposed your usual vacuous rambling, points out your complete grasplessness of any idea of coherence in this. And just to bring you back to the issue that you are avoiding. Existence is a temporal claim. How does non temporal as an attribute work in that?
-
I believe I have characterised it in the description I gave of it.
Your characterisation, such as "non spatio temporal", is inept as NS has pointed out - how can something be said to exist outwith time or space: how could you identify it in the first place?
In terms of knowledge. That I know about it doesn't affect that things existence or otherwise does it?
But how do you 'know' about it, Vlad: if the existence of this "non spatio termporal" thing is indeed known to you then what items of knowledge do you have about it, epistemology-wise?
For example, on re-reading this particular point of yours, you seem to be saying that there is a difference between what you think you 'know' and the "existence or otherwise" of the thing you think you know about, and this seems to open up the possibility that you think you have knowledge of something that might not exist - and that makes no sense.
There is a lot of talk in the scientificcommunity that Maths is the basis of reality and Maths would certainly fit the description I gave.
But Maths is axiomatic, Vlad, and not a 'thing' that can be said to exist "non spatio temporally" - I think you are grasping at things thoughtlessly.
In view of this i'm not sure the question ''why would you think that there was more than the material'' is particularly an intelligent one.
It is a perfectly intelligent question to at least ask: remember the risk of those pesky 'unknown unknowns' cannot just be dismissed, but it wouldn't be intelligent to answer that there could be more than the natural, as opposed to "material", in the absence of a method suited to the non-natural, since without such a method 'non natural' is a meaningless term.
-
Non spatio temporal means that it cannot be pinned down to one place or time or if you like it is eternal and everywhere.
Secondly, can you give a citation that being is a temporal claim?
Can you give an example of something that is non spatial temporal that definitely exists please.
-
Nothing can be pinned down to one time. Indeed your inept attempt at a definition, which I will at least applaud because it is at least an attempt, as opposed your usual vacuous rambling, points out your complete grasplessness of any idea of coherence in this. And just to bring you back to the issue that you are avoiding. Existence is a temporal claim. How does non temporal as an attribute work in that?
Thank you for your applause. It is most gracious.
By spatio temporal I mean all observed processes and objects are observed or predicted to have lasted for a period of time and to occupy space. Can the universe be described thus. If so then I believe we are looking at either 1) It popped out of nothing or 2) it is contingent on something else.
The alternative is that the universe has been around forever and if so I doubt we can say that it has lasted for a period of time or that it could be reasonably said to occupy a space.
I am still not convinced, for some of the above reasons that existence is a temporal claim.
-
Vlad,
Hillside's lost it.
Nope. For as long as you persist in asking people to justify terms whose meanings you've redefined for your own amusement, you're trolling.
-
Vlad,
Nope. For as long as you persist in asking people to justify terms whose meanings you've redefined for your own amusement, you're trolling.
No......I like arguments Hillside and I am grateful that posters have seen past you and made argument that is above your playground level and a bit more than argumentum ad ridiculum.
-
Vlad,
No......I like arguments Hillside…
That’s clearly a lie. You have never had any interest in arguing honestly about anything.
… and I am grateful that posters have seen past you and made argument…
That’s another lie. People here know full well that you just make up your own definitions of various philosophical terms in order to complain that others can’t justify them. That’s just you trolling. What some have done though is to ignore the dishonest subject question and to talk about a different issue from the one you tried to sneak in.
…that is above your playground level…
Identifying your trolling isn’t playground level anything.
… and a bit more than argumentum ad ridiculum.
You’ve never understood (or have always chosen to lie about) the appeal to ridicule. What you actually receive (and have always received) is the reductio ad absurdum rebuttal – ie, if your attempts at argument lead equally well to plainly absurd conclusions then your arguments are wrong. Bluehillside’s fourth maxim remember: “If an argument for god works just as well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.”
The reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate logical rebuttal; your recharacterisation of it as an appeal to ridicule is just your evasion of your problem.
-
I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating.
Surely one of the justifications for a particular philosophy is that it works?
Why 'operate' like you suggest?
Because we need to operate, and if you have to do something why not do something that demonstrably works rather than something that doesn't?
In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here.
Doesn't everyone? The difference is, this way, you actually can.
You don't want admit a to a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.
Not at all, a philosophy doesn't sit in isolation from reality, and therefore why should it be purely one way product from logic to manifestation, why is there not a capacity for feedback and verification?
I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one. In other words in matters of material.....I am methodologically materialist.
And?
Is that different from your position? If so....how is it different.
I've no idea - if you presume, in the absence of any justification, that there is something more than the material then yes there's a difference.
O.
-
I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.
Anything can be considered a possibility - there might or might not be magic - but you don't include it unless there's a justification or you end up with a philosophy so cluttered and convoluted that it's meaningless.
O.