Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Rawhide!"

Hillside's lost it.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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. 

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

Really? what about being eternal....as some propose the universe to be?

Still is a temporal claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still is a temporal claim.

So are you saying that that renders eternal entities impossible?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?