Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[Gordon]

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? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 .

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[ippy]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[ippy]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.