Materialism

[ProfessorDavey]

  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.

This thread is about science and how it works - indeed you mention science and scientist within the OP and the very first reply is about whether the person in the video is a scientist, in other words whether they use the scientific method.

Therefore discussion how science works is absolutely critical to the discussion on this thread - if you don't understand how science works how can you discuss its strengths, its limitations, its scope etc.

And throughout this thread (and on other threads) you have regularly made comments that demonstrate that you either do not understand how it works, or are deliberately misrepresenting how it works. Therefore it is perfectly appropriate to explain to you how it does work. So until or unless you begin to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of how science works I will continue to explain it to you, and also continue to explain why my explanation might be considered rather seriously as I am a very experienced professional scientist of some standing in the global scientific community.

[jeremyp]

If science is designed to work only with materialism

It's not. It deals only with the real World. If you say "this phenomenon in which I believe cannot be dealt with by science", you are saying tat the phenomenon s not part of the real world.

The key point about science has nothing to do with materialism or any of the fancy words that people like you wheel out: it's about testing your ideas to see if they are true. You'd be amazed at how powerful not accepting an idea just because you want to believe it is.

[Sriram]

You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?

[Bramble]

You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?

According to you this is the after-life. Science is already investigating it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?

I think the point is that for a lot of people it's too big an "IF" to accept as true without any evidence. And given the multiple competing speculations about the supernatural, some people have little appetite for incorporating any of the speculative ideas into their lives in any meaningful way.

If there is no method to discern what is true and what is false, many people increasingly prefer to live their lives without picking a supernatural speculation to explore.

[jeremyp]

You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism.

Tell me what you mean by materialism and I'll tell you if science is designed only to work with it.

If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?

That's for the people who claim an afterlife exists to figure out. All you need to do is to figure out a way to test your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the point is that for a lot of people it's too big an "IF" to accept as true without any evidence. And given the multiple competing speculations about the supernatural, some people have little appetite for incorporating any of the speculative ideas into their lives in any meaningful way.

If there is no method to discern what is true and what is false, many people increasingly prefer to live their lives without picking a supernatural speculation to explore.

I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.

Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.

They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.

In my humble opinion.

[Sriram]

Tell me what you mean by materialism and I'll tell you if science is designed only to work with it.
That's for the people who claim an afterlife exists to figure out. All you need to do is to figure out a way to test your claim.

You are digressing and not answering a straight question. You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is. 

I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!

You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.

Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.

They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.

In my humble opinion.

What does "explore" look like? What does someone do to "explore"? I can read many philosophical ideas and sure it's information about other people's ideas - my eldest asked me to read over her philosophy essay on Singer about speciesism, a discriminatory attitude to animals on par with sexism and racism.

If there is no evidence for any philosophical ideas, what else would exploring the philosophy entail other than reading the paper and acknowledging that there might be some points that I agree/ disagree with in the ideas expressed? There are lots of philosophical ideas I don't take on board or incorporate into my life. Which is presumably what atheists do when it comes to religious ideas about unevidenced supernatural concepts. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.

Provided you don’t straw man “philosophical empiricism”, of course it has. 

Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.

No, the philosophical empiricist need only confine him or herself to what that term actually means – ie the finding that empiricism provides the only means we yet have to investigate, evaluate and codify the observable universe. The extent to which its results are the reality rather than just a reality is another matter entirely. The point though is that it provides a coherent way to navigate the world whereas guessing about gods, afterlifes, leprechauns or anything else the proponent chooses to posit outwith empiricism’s ambit does not.

Given the countless times this has been explained to you, you really should know this by now.     

They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.

No, “they” merely claim to have arrived at a functional reality. Re-characterising that to include claims of the reality is just the same straw man you endlessly attempt   

In my humble opinion.

Humble or not, your problem (well, one of them at least) is that opinions are all you have. And your opinion about “God” is epistemically identical to my opinion about leprechauns: both are worthless if you want to bridge the gap from subjective to objective. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are digressing and not answering a straight question. You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is.

Science is fundamentally materialistic in character. So what? 

I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!

For you, no doubt you think you have. Your problem though if you expect your personal beliefs about that to be taken seriously by anyone else is that what you call “evidence” is hopelessly inadequate if the claim so to be investigated objectively. Your “evidence” is equivalent to my “evidence” about leprechauns. Or to a child’s “evidence” about the Tooth Fairy (“Look, the tooth was gone in the morning. Therefore evidence for the Tooth Fairy!”).

You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?

Whether or not he was right about that, you’re committing here a basic logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. If you want to claim an after-life (or for that matter leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy) then it’s your job to tell others how the claim should be validated.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Provided you don’t straw man “philosophical empiricism”, of course it has. 

No, the philosophical empiricist need only confine him or herself to what that term actually means – ie the finding that empiricism provides the only means we yet have to investigate, evaluate and codify the observable universe.

where did you get this from (Cite source please) It looks fake. Giveaways include ''Finding''.... what? by looking with the eyes of an empiricist? ''observable'' is there any other kind for an empiricist? Did you carefully put this reforming of philosophical empiricism together yourself based on words used in our last discussion?

[Sriram]

Sriram,


Whether or not he was right about that, you’re committing here a basic logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. If you want to claim an after-life (or for that matter leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy) then it’s your job to tell others how the claim should be validated. 

No.... If anyone claims that science also deals with non material aspects of reality....it is for them to explain how exactly science will know and how exactly it will go about investigating such phenomena.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

where did you get this from (Cite source please)

Get what from – that empiricism isn’t absolutist? Try looking it up. What you’re trying for here is more like physicalism, but you know this too what with it having been explained to you ten bajillion times already. 
 

It looks fake.

Only to you. Try taking it up with the authors of pretty much every dictionary, philosophy website and other relevant source if you don’t like it.

Giveaways ''Finding'' what by looking with the eyes of an empiricist. ''observable'' is there any other kind for an empiricist?

They’re hardly “giveaways” – just descriptions of what the term entails. Empiricism brings with a method to distinguish its findings from just guessing, so the “eyes” involved are neither here nor there. If you want to claim a non-material and accuse empiricism of being unable to investigate it though then find another method to do it.     
 

Did you carefully put this reforming of philosophical materialism yourself based on words used in our last discussion?

That supposed “reforming” is exactly the same explanation I’ve given you for years here, no matter how much you’ve ignored it, straw manned it, lied about it etc. Perhaps if after all this time you tried to address the argument you’re actually given rather than “reforming” it to suit your purposes you might finally grasp the mistake you keep making here?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Get what from – that empiricism isn’t absolutist? Try looking it up.

I didn't mention the absolutism or otherwise of philosophical empiricism...but more to the point neither did you.

Philosophical empiricism is not methodological empiricism. In fact the latter gives no support to the former. That was just a turd polisher's non sequitur. It is irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

No.... If anyone claims that science also deals with non material aspects of reality....it is for them to explain how exactly science will know and how exactly it will go about investigating such phenomena.

Try reading what was actually said to you.  No-one does “claim that science also deals with non material aspects of reality”, not least because the job is all yours to demonstrate first that there even is such a phenomenon to be "dealt" with.

Good luck with it though.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief.

Jeremy actually said:

"It's not. It (science) deals only with the real World.......

The key point about science has nothing to do with materialism or any of the fancy words that people like you wheel out: it's about testing your ideas to see if they are true."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I didn't mention the absolutism or otherwise of philosophical empiricism...but more to the point neither did you.

Without a claim of absolutism your complaint that empiricism cannot justify itself falls apart. It justifies itself perfectly readily by reference to the observable facts -  ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc – which is all it claims to do. 

Philosophical empiricism is not methodological empiricism.

Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess. Keep going…

In fact the latter gives no support to the former. That was just a turd polisher's non sequitur. It is irrelevant.

Back to your same straw man? Really though? Methodological materialism does “give support to” philosophical materialism because it provides the data to validate it. Here’s Wiki on empiricism: 

“In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience.[4]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification".[5] Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Can you see the “or primarily”, “emphasises the role of”, “emphasises evidence”, "knowledge is based on experience", and what’s more the slam dunk of "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Can you though?

If you can, can you also now (finally) grasp where you keep going wrong about this? Empiricism gives us a method of distinguishing a “tentative and probabilistic” model of reality from a just guessed at model of reality. “planes flying, medicine curing and the rest are in the former category that are thus described as “objective” truths, whereas gods and leprechauns existing etc are the latter category and so are only ever “subjective” truths – ie, true just for the person who happens to think they are true.

I have of course explained this to you countless times before now, and we both know that you’ll never address the explanation but hey-ho – there it remains as it always has nonetheless.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Without a claim of absolutism your complaint that empiricism cannot justify itself falls apart. It justifies itself perfectly readily by reference to the observable facts -  ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc – which is all it claims to do.

That it cannot justify itself is just an inconvenient fact for it. That you use philosophical empiricism to justify your atheism is just an inconvenient fact for you

Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess. Keep going…

I 've been saying that long and hard Hillside .You on the hand have been trying to shoehorn philosophical empiricism into methodological empiricism for as long.

If you can, can you also now (finally) grasp where you keep going wrong about this? Empiricism gives us a method of distinguishing a “tentative and probabilistic” model of reality from a just guessed at model of reality. “planes flying, medicine curing and the rest are in the former category that are thus described as “objective” truths, whereas gods and leprechauns existing etc are the latter category and so are only ever “subjective” truths – ie, true just for the person who happens to think they are true.     

Here's the rub, is science the child of the philosophical empiricists or visa versa since many rationalists were also methodological empiricists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That it cannot justify itself is just an inconvenient fact for it.

That’s not a fact for the reason I explained and you just ignored. Why be dishonest about that?

That you use philosophical empiricism to justify your atheism is just an inconvenient fact for you

That’s not a fact either. I “justify” my atheism by the fact that neither you nor anyone else I’m aware of can construct an argument to justify the claim “god” that isn’t wrong. Why be dishonest about that?
 

I 've been saying that long and hard Hillside .You on the hand have been trying to shoehorn philosophical empiricism into methodological empiricism for as long.

I have of course done no such thing, for the reason I explained to you in my last post (and many times before that too) and you have just ignored. Why be dishonest about that?
 

Here's the rub, is science the child of the philosophical empiricists or visa versa since many rationalists were also methodological empiricists.

Incoherent gibberish won’t help you here either. I explained to you how it is that methodological empiricism validates philosophical empiricism, and you have just ignored that explanation. Why be dishonest about that?

[jeremyp]

You are digressing and not answering a straight question.

Evasion noted.

Your question contained a premise which may or may not be true depending on how you define "the material world". I can't answer it until you define your terms.

You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is. 

I have no idea what you mean by "materialism" but you clearly don't think it is the same as "the real World". What do you think it is?

I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!

It's time you put up or shut up then. Show us the evidence.

You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?

My question is, if you can't test your ideas about the afterlife, how can you know there is such a thing? You can't. Your ideas about the afterlife are nothing more than guesses.

[Sriram]

 

You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.

Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?

Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.

And jeremyp....pl don't tell me to shut up. That is not civil language.

[Outrider]

You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.

*ring ring* Hello, Mr Kettle?...

Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?

Because if it's real there will be effects, and those effects will be measurable or detectable. If it has no measurable or detectable effects, then in what way can it be said to be real?

Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.

Nobody's saying that. You're suggesting that people are using the wrong tool - which is sort of a misattribution, I think what you're aiming for is that we currently don't have the right tools, which is possible. However, you're making the claim, you're saying (as I understand it) that this isn't just possible, this is something that you think actually definitively IS the case, and it's therefore on you in a discussion such as this to spell out how it is that you can elevate a notional possibility to something that you contend is fact.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.

Irony overload.  “We guys” are actually explaining to you where your reasoning fails and in response it’s you who’s just repeating yourself rather than addressing the arguments you’re given.

Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....

No-one says that. Science deals with what science can deal with. Whether there are phenomena it could not deal with even in principle is at this stage at least entirely speculative. 

the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?

No, the “question” would then be “how would science know if any phenomenon I posit and then place outwith science’s ability to investigate exists?”. The answer is that it wouldn’t, but it’s non-question. Whether you want to posit after-lifes or leprechauns leaving pots of gold at then ends of rainbows and claim each to be non-material, then it’s your job to find a method to justify your claim(s).   

Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.

And a straw man argument. No-one says “I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist'” at all. Rather what people here actually say is “using the only tools available to me I cannot investigate your speculations, so I have no reason to believe they exist. If you think there’s another way to investigate your speculations though, then tell us what it is.”

Can you see the difference now between what’s actually said and your straw man version of it?   

[Sriram]

*ring ring* Hello, Mr Kettle?...

Because if it's real there will be effects, and those effects will be measurable or detectable. If it has no measurable or detectable effects, then in what way can it be said to be real?

Nobody's saying that. You're suggesting that people are using the wrong tool - which is sort of a misattribution, I think what you're aiming for is that we currently don't have the right tools, which is possible. However, you're making the claim, you're saying (as I understand it) that this isn't just possible, this is something that you think actually definitively IS the case, and it's therefore on you in a discussion such as this to spell out how it is that you can elevate a notional possibility to something that you contend is fact.

O.

I am not saying that an after-life is there or not. What I believe is irrelevant for this discussion.

My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects...how will it possibly know about an after-life and how will it investigate that phenomenon? 

It simply doesn't have the tools!  (you have understood that point correctly).  That is all I am saying...

Stop saying ....'your claim so your burden of proof'.  I am not making any claim (in this thread). You claim that science can  understand and investigate all phenomena. So, you have to establish that science is capable of knowing of an after-life and is capable of investigating it.