• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

annnnoid said:
Pixy ran away from the question…are you going to run away as well?
Click to expand...

No one is "running away" from your nonsensical questions. You aren't asking questions that make enough sense to be answered. You aren't making sense at all. You're talking in patented Woo Slinger wall of text/word salad. You're out beyond the event horizon of the formless.
 
Bob: What would the color purple tax the bishop for a ride on the merry go round?
Ted: .... what?
Bob: STOP RUNNING AWAY FROM MY QUESTION!
 
PixyMisa said:
Science works. Nothing else does. Case closed.
Click to expand...


So prove it. You’re a smart lad. Should be simple.

Prove that science is the only valid epistemology.

Prove that you yourself function only within this epistemology. Answer the questions. How do you apply the epistemology of science to dealing with all the mundane little issues you encounter every moment of every day.

Cause you either use this singular epistemology all-the-time…or you have to admit, by default, that another functional epistemology exists.

You do realize that such a claim constitutes an admission of psychosis? Not to mention that's it's patently impossible, blatantly dysfunctional, and indisputably impractical.

So either you admit you're psychotic...or at the very least neurotic...or you admit science is not the only valid epistemology.

If you are going to insist that science is, in fact, the only valid epistemology you will have done no more than confirm Larry’s conclusions…once again…that you’re nothing but a bunch of true believers.

Nonpareil said:
If you want to try and present anecdotes as evidence, yes, you do have to show that they are valid.

It's not a complicated concept.

It's not running away if the question is irrelevant, poorly-phrased nonsense.

It's just refusing to waste any more of our time than necessary on your purposefully obtuse ramblings.
Click to expand...


So nothing else works…then demonstrate for the breathless audience here how you apply scientific epistemology to your everyday life. If nothing else works…then you must be using science every moment of every day.

How does the epistemology of science apply to:
- grocery shopping
- movie selection
- sex with you wife
- planning a vacation
- what variety of pizza to order
- cleaning the toilet
- walking the dog
- having a beer with a friend

…etc. etc. etc. etc.

You might want to consider…that there are roughly half a million psychologists in the world. The claim that science is the only valid human epistemology would be summarily dismissed by virtually every single one.

Shall we give it a try? I have some experience sending emails to university profs. Why don’t we do a little survey of psych. prof's and see how many agree with you…and how many agree with me. I'll even let you write the question...so it's not obtuse, poorly phrased nonsense. Better be careful though...remember what happened last time I got professionals involved.

You got hammered!

Of course…they could all be rank idiots…and you, and Pixy, and Belz, and tsig can legitimately claim to be the only sane people in the entire world.
 
So basically you want us to emperically prove that emperical proofs don't work.

Why are demanding proof via the very method you are trying to disprove?

I tell you what... "materialism" is true because the magic fairy in my head said so. There.
 
Belz... said:
So now you're actually asking people to prove that science works.

I do believe we can conclude that you are not arguing in good faith, although that has been obvious for years, now.

// FILTER : INCREDULITY

<<< ERROR. NO CONTENT >>>
Click to expand...


Prove
that
science
is
the
only
valid
epistemology.

For the hard of hearing. I can easily establish that it isn't...but it's your claim. Support it..or it's garbage.
 
Belz... said:
It's not question-begging. It's simply that you are IGNORANT of the scientific knowledge on this topic. As I tell you again and again: your ignorance is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...


Well then Belz…since I am sooooo ignorant and you are obviously sooooo knowledgeable…here are all those questions again since you didn’t answer a single one the first time:

Where has it been definitively established that evidence is only valid if it preferentially supports a conclusion?
Where has it been definitively established that NDE’s are explicitly a result of oxygen deprivation and only oxygen deprivation?
Where has the explicit causal relationship between oxygen deprivation and NDE’s been established?
Where has it been definitively established that we know how anything at all is produced by the brain?
Where has it been definitively established that oxygen deprived brains produce experiences identical to NDE’s?
Where has it been definitively established that we have any explicit scientific capacity to accurately adjudicate subjective experience?
Where has it been definitively established that the experiences described in either these oxygen deprived events or actual NDE’s are not exactly what the individuals describe?
 
annnnoid said:
Well then Belz…since I am sooooo ignorant and you are obviously sooooo knowledgeable…here are all those questions again since you didn’t answer a single one the first time:

Where has it been definitively established that evidence is only valid if it preferentially supports a conclusion?
Where has it been definitively established that NDE’s are explicitly a result of oxygen deprivation and only oxygen deprivation?
Where has the explicit causal relationship between oxygen deprivation and NDE’s been established?
Where has it been definitively established that we know how anything at all is produced by the brain?
Where has it been definitively established that oxygen deprived brains produce experiences identical to NDE’s?
Where has it been definitively established that we have any explicit scientific capacity to accurately adjudicate subjective experience?
Where has it been definitively established that the experiences described in either these oxygen deprived events or actual NDE’s are not exactly what the individuals describe?
Click to expand...

Sorry, whatever that is, I can't see any of it because of the nonsense filter. I guess I can discard your incredulity, now.

It's good to see that you now agree with me that science can and will one day explain consciousness fully. Have a nice day.
 
annnnoid said:
So prove it. You’re a smart lad. Should be simple.

Prove that science is the only valid epistemology.
Click to expand...

We know it's valid.

There are no others.

Simple, yes?

Now stop with the shallow attempts at derailing the discussion and present your argument for yours bein valid or admit that you have no evidence. This constant dancing around the point is tiresome.

Prove that you yourself function only within this epistemology. Answer the questions. How do you apply the epistemology of science to dealing with all the mundane little issues you encounter every moment of every day.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously questioning the idea that making reasoned, rational decisions based on prior experience and tested data is something that you do every second of every day?

If so, why do you believe that pressing your "." key, as you are so fond of doing, will continue to produce "." characters on your screen?

Stop being deliberately obtuse and present your evidence. Big Red Letters do not make a stupid question any less stupid. They just make it more obnoxious.
 
marplots said:
Well, maybe it isn't religious adherence. But seeing as how you are perfectly willing to dismiss an entire branch of Philosophy because you don't find it meaningful, it sure does sound like something akin to the same toxic certainty we usually find in religious circles.

...snip...
Click to expand...

To continue in the religious theme - do you remain skeptical that the son of god died for our sins? Some "knowledge" has simply been shown to be wrong. Whether that is an entire branch of philosophy or the sun revolving around the earth doesn't matter.
 
PixyMisa said:
There's no "prohibition". There's nothing that resembles a prohibition in any way.

Some ideas simply aren't true. You are free to discuss idealism all you like, just as you're free to discuss Harry Potter.

If you want to argue that either one represents reality in any way, though, you're going to have a rough time establishing your claim.
Click to expand...

Oh, I got that. The discussion goes something like this:
"Blah blah, reasons for supporting idealism, blah blah..."
"Wrong."

Wonderfully compelling, that. Kinda like a "discussion" with a four-year-old.
 
annnnoid said:
Prove
that
science
is
the
only
valid
epistemology.

For the hard of hearing. I can easily establish that it isn't...but it's your claim. Support it..or it's garbage.
Click to expand...

If you would prefer it to be worded as "it is the only one known to work" then I doubt anyone will object to the qualifier as it alters reality not one iota.

Of course if you have an alternate you could present it...
 
tsig said:
No one is prohibiting you, they are disagreeing with you.

You keep using words that imply that saying that reality is real is a religious statement, why do you do that?
Click to expand...

Because of statements like this:

PixyMisa said:
Science works. Nothing else does. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Replace the word science with the word God, and it should become apparent. Neither is open to criticism or discussion. The die is cast, the issue is moot; what's for lunch?

Why do we even have a religion and philosophy sub-forum? "Science works. Nothing else does. Case closed."
 
annnnoid said:
Prove
that
science
is
the
only
valid
epistemology.

For the hard of hearing. I can easily establish that it isn't...but it's your claim. Support it..or it's garbage.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to play skeptical, annnnoid?!! I mean it!!! I am a skeptic and you make one common mistake when it comes to epistemology and logic(valid). Namely that there is a valid epistemology for all of reality. There isn't! It is easy to understand, because your demand for a valid epistemology is not valid. I.e. there is no one valid system of knowledge, because epistemology and logic breaks down when you look closer. You can't give valid arguments for validity, because it begs the question. The same is the case with knowledge, you end up begging the question.
So as a skeptic forget about valid and knowledge for everything and go for what works for something.
 
Darat said:
To continue in the religious theme - do you remain skeptical that the son of god died for our sins? Some "knowledge" has simply been shown to be wrong. Whether that is an entire branch of philosophy or the sun revolving around the earth doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

When you say, "shown to be wrong" are you implying the question is settled, or that you and I agree while many of our peers remain convinced of the opposite? It's a very strange thing to say "settled" when two distinct points of view remain so prevalent. To me, that means the opposite of settled.
 
marplots said:
Replace the word science with the word God, and it should become apparent. Neither is open to criticism or discussion. The die is cast, the issue is moot; what's for lunch?
Click to expand...

Not actually true. Science being the only valid epistemology is open for discussion; in fact, we're discussing it now.

But - and this is the critical part - it is entirely, undeniably true that science is the only one we know of that works.

At all.

Dozens of alternatives have been put forth, usually ones attempting to weasel in personal accounts as acceptable evidence for things like NDEs. Every one has failed to stand up to testing.

"Case closed" is hyperbole, but not by much. Science not being the only functional epistemology is possible, technically, but finding another one would be an incredible upset, and I, for one, am quite sure that annnnoid isn't about to manage that.
 
Nonpareil said:
Now stop with the shallow attempts at derailing the discussion and present your argument for yours bein valid or admit that you have no evidence. This constant dancing around the point is tiresome.
Click to expand...


...because the vast majority of the people on this planet successfully use it every moment of every day (how do we know this...cause the vast majority of the people on this planet have never studied science and wouldn't know a scientific epistemology if it landed on top of them).

...and...the vast majority of normal scientists use it to successfully adjudicate just about the entirety of their non-professional lives.

So...again...what's this proof that science is the only valid epistemology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom