Materialism

[ProfessorDavey]

Science cannot be self correcting. That is nonsense.

Are you for real!?! Of course science is self-correcting. That is its whole approach. The scientific method never accepts that any theory is 'proven' merely that it is the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. It also requires that any theory must be exhaustively retested (and demonstrated to be reproducible or not) including using new approaches as they arrive.

And when new evidence emerges it may further support the conclusion within a theory and perhaps provide further detail. Alternatively it may not be consistent with that theory and bit by bit science self corrects itself to support a new scientific theory - which itself will not be cast in stone, but simply be a new expression of the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. And so it goes on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. They were questions addressed to Vlad's vague hand-waving attempts at producing an argument. Any convolution is a result of his incoherence.

All but meaningless. Stuff exists and is the way it is. We don't know why.

Inventing something, calling it the "ultimate source of existence" and then "God" (for no apparent reason), doesn't address the problem of why stuff exists and is the way it is because, whatever it is, it has to itself be part of what exists.

You've just invented something that would, if it exists, just add to the problem, not solve it.

Logic takes us to the ultimate source I'm afraid.
Your attempt to dismiss the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason is comical.

[Stranger]

Logic takes us to the ultimate source I'm afraid.

Logic is a stranger to you, as far as I can tell.

Your attempt to dismiss the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason is comical.

Mindless, fallacious mantra that has nothing to do with the questions I asked.

How about you answer the question: what's the sufficient reason for your god?

[Alan Burns]

what's the sufficient reason for your god?

For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.

[ProfessorDavey]

For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.

While I accept all those attributes are incredible import to us as humans, if you have a broad rather than a narrow anthropocentric perspective they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense. In the context of the universe from its origins to now, from its further point to every other point behaviour aspects of humans are irrelevant and likely undetectable appearing on one tiny planet in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense.

I would be interest in what gives you warrant to say this. What is important in the cosmos and who gets to say. Is that based on salary?

[Sriram]

Are you for real!?! Of course science is self-correcting. That is its whole approach. The scientific method never accepts that any theory is 'proven' merely that it is the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. It also requires that any theory must be exhaustively retested (and demonstrated to be reproducible or not) including using new approaches as they arrive.

And when new evidence emerges it may further support the conclusion within a theory and perhaps provide further detail. Alternatively it may not be consistent with that theory and bit by bit science self corrects itself to support a new scientific theory - which itself will not be cast in stone, but simply be a new expression of the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. And so it goes on.

Science is done by scientists. If scientists change their data, their models and their interpretations....then science also changes accordingly (not necessarily more correct). Science is always tentative because scientists always rely on their limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases.

[torridon]

Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.

You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.

This reveals God to be something invented, not something discovered.  A handy fix, devised by humans to close down the existential angst of not knowing where everything comes from. Like a sticking plaster does not cure the problem, it merely covers it up. Don't ask where god comes from, eh ?

[ProfessorDavey]

Science is done by scientists.

Actually - increasingly the science, the generation of data is done by machines, equipment etc - so yesterday one of my post-docs sent me his latest data, a video montage and quantitative graph of fluorescence generated by endothelial cells following transfection with GFP (go look them up if you don't understand the terms). All this was generated by an automated system with no human involvement in the data collection.

If scientists change their data, ...

If scientists change their data then that is scientific fraud, which of course does happen occasionally. But this is often picked up as the requirement for findings to be repeatable means that as other groups look to repeat the study they will come up with different data, and bit by bit the 'changed data' will become apparent and be disregarded, whether or not the scientific fraud is actually uncovered.

their models and their interpretations....then science also changes accordingly (not necessarily more correct).

A scientific position (a scientific theory) will change on the basis of new and additional data, not because scientists have changed their data. And it will continue to be self correcting - so it may move in a direction that is less correct but as we add further data again we will likely move back toward the correct explanation. The point is that the process never stops and the more we go on and the more data will collect and interpret the greater the likelihood that the best explanation for those data (the scientific theory) is the correct one.

Science is always tentative because scientists always rely on their limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases.

Wrong - science is alway tentative because science always recognises that it is possible and desirable to obtain further data, either to strengthen the current theory or, bit by bit, to move it to a better explanation based on greater data. I think you will find that explanations based on limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases are called beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

While I accept all those attributes are incredible import to us as humans, if you have a broad rather than a narrow anthropocentric perspective they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense. In the context of the universe from its origins to now, from its further point to every other point behaviour aspects of humans are irrelevant and likely undetectable appearing on one tiny planet in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.

Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.

[torridon]

Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.

 .. which begs the question of why a god would create a universe that is hostile to life.  He has something against life ?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.

Indifferent and hostile are terms that imply intent. The universe has no 'intent' merely material entities, energy, physical laws etc. And there is nothing that is any way conflicting between those feature of the universe and the very slow evolution of the traits that we see in humans. It is, of course, pretty rare, for the correct conditions to arise for that evolution to occur but given the size and timescales involved in the universe we should not be surprised if this has occurred at least once at some place and at some time in the universe.

[Alan Burns]

This reveals God to be something invented, not something discovered.  A handy fix, devised by humans to close down the existential angst of not knowing where everything comes from. Like a sticking plaster does not cure the problem, it merely covers it up. Don't ask where god comes from, eh ?

Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.

[Sriram]

Actually - increasingly the science, the generation of data is done by machines, equipment etc - so yesterday one of my post-docs sent me his latest data, a video montage and quantitative graph of fluorescence generated by endothelial cells following transfection with GFP (go look them up if you don't understand the terms). All this was generated by an automated system with no human involvement in the data collection.
If scientists change their data then that is scientific fraud, which of course does happen occasionally. But this is often picked up as the requirement for findings to be repeatable means that as other groups look to repeat the study they will come up with different data, and bit by bit the 'changed data' will become apparent and be disregarded, whether or not the scientific fraud is actually uncovered.
A scientific position (a scientific theory) will change on the basis of new and additional data, not because scientists have changed their data. And it will continue to be self correcting - so it may move in a direction that is less correct but as we add further data again we will likely move back toward the correct explanation. The point is that the process never stops and the more we go on and the more data will collect and interpret the greater the likelihood that the best explanation for those data (the scientific theory) is the correct one.
Wrong - science is alway tentative because science always recognises that it is possible and desirable to obtain further data, either to strengthen the current theory or, bit by bit, to move it to a better explanation based on greater data. I think you will find that explanations based on limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases are called beliefs.

Goodness Prof!  You really are microscopic in your perception. You are trying hard to misunderstand instead of trying to understand.     Or maybe you can't help misunderstanding, given your mindset.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[torridon]

Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.

Probably a deduction based on our intuitions about the fundamental nature of reality.  Science has long been in the business of upending our intuitions about reality however. See quantum mechanics for details.

[Stranger]

For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.

Both irrelevant to the question and an argument from incredulity.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Goodness Prof!  You really are microscopic in your perception. You are trying hard to misunderstand instead of trying to understand.     Or maybe you can't help misunderstanding, given your mindset.

Cheers.

Sriram

Sorry Sriram - wrong way around. It is you that seems continually to misunderstand how science works, to the extent that it comes across as wilful.

All I am doing is trying to help you understand how science works, and I think I do understand how science works. Why - because I am a professional scientist and have been for over 30 years. I have also had overall responsibility for administering the wide-ranging research for an entire Science Faculty in a major research-intensive university and currently have a similar role, focussing on the impacts of research, for the entire university.

So I think I know what I'm talking about.

If you choose to ignore what I'm telling you about how science works, then that is your choice. But should you do so, and you continually seem to do, then I'm afraid it is you, not me, who is guilty of misunderstanding.

And sure, microscopic can apply to me - but only in the context of the work I perform that uses microscopes (including the data I described above), or perhaps the new state of the art microscope we've just installed with nearly £1million funding that I was part of securing, or perhaps the £2m microscope we've just agreed to fund in the university with me being one of the decision makers for that funding.

[Stranger]

Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.

When it gets to the question of why things exist and are the way they are, we simply don't know, but inventing a god doesn't help, because it would just be a part of what exists.

Vlad was arguing about it being necessary but seems unable to answer even the most basic of questions about what that would actually mean. After having insisted that everything has to have a sufficient reason, he can't answer what the sufficient reason for his god would be.

[Sriram]

Sorry Sriram - wrong way around. It is you that seems continually to misunderstand how science works, to the extent that it comes across as wilful.

All I am doing is trying to help you understand how science works, and I think I do understand how science works. Why - because I am a professional scientist and have been for over 30 years. I have also had overall responsibility for administering the wide-ranging research for an entire Science Faculty in a major research-intensive university and currently have a similar role, focussing on the impacts of research, for the entire university.

So I think I know what I'm talking about.

If you choose to ignore what I'm telling you about how science works, then that is your choice. But should you do so, and you continually seem to do, then I'm afraid it is you, not me, who is guilty of misunderstanding.

And sure, microscopic can apply to me - but only in the context of the work I perform that uses microscopes (including the data I described above), or perhaps the new state of the art microscope we've just installed with nearly £1million funding that I was part of securing, or perhaps the £2m microscope we've just agreed to fund in the university with me being one of the decision makers for that funding.

My discussion has nothing to do with how science works.  My point is that ....whatever science does, it is limited and it does not cover many aspects of reality. The basic assumption of materialism is invalid. That is all the point is.

[Udayana]

...
The basic assumption of materialism is invalid. That is all the point is.

It may be - but how can you know that? Without providing or addressing the arguments, it is just a (pointless) assertion.
 
Eg: Which steps along which "path" take you that conclusion?

[jeremyp]

Science cannot be self correcting.

You only believe that because you have no idea how science works. Scientists have made plenty of mistakes and got lots of stuff wrong. However, eventually, the accumulated evidence always overwhelms then. The geocentric, theory, phlogiston, caloric, the corpuscular theory of light, the luminiferous ether, Newton's theory of gravity, the wave theory of light: all scientific ideas believed fervently by scientists and all shown to be wrong by science.

That is nonsense. The direction in which scientists and their biases take it.....it will go.....till later generations adopt different attitudes and change its course.

But later generations do adopt different attitudes and change its course. But they don't do it at random. They change its curse because the evidence says the old course was wrong.


 

'Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings'.

See my point....!

You don't have a point.

[jeremyp]

Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.

You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.

The word "God" comes with all kinds of baggage. I think it would be better not to use until we have established the nature of this "source of all existence".

[jeremyp]

My discussion has nothing to do with how science works.  My point is that ....whatever science does, it is limited and it does not cover many aspects of reality.

But you don't know how science works so you really can't make such claims with any degree of credibility.

The basic assumption of materialism is invalid.

What evidence too you have for that assertion?

What do you understand by the word "materialism"?

[ProfessorDavey]

But you don't know how science works so you really can't make such claims with any degree of credibility.

And regardless of how patiently I, as a longstanding professional scientist of some renown, try to explain how science works he simply refuses to engage whatsoever. You'd think he might have the common courtesy to at least try to understand how science works - yet all he does in response my my attempted explanations is frankly insult me by claiming I am the one with microscopic thinking and the one who misunderstands - just astonishing.

[Sriram]

  Ha! Ha! Regardless of what we are discussing....you keep repeating what you know. 'I know how science works...I know how science works'...

That is not what we are discussing in this thread. This thread is about the basic assumption of materialism and its limitations. Watch Sheldrake's video.

If science is designed to work only with materialism......then scientists should attempt to enlarge its scope to include other aspects of reality or just keep quite about things that are outside the scope of science.