Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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!

[Walter]

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!

[Outrider]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?