Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

Utterly wrong.

How so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Outrider]

Of course it does....it limits it to material.

That's only a limit if you presume there's something more than material...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.