• 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

Tommy Jeppesen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Right. So do let me know what variety of science I should refer to when I want to get married.
 
annnnoid said:
...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?
Click to expand...

Serious question, Annnnoid: do you believe you are being rational and logical, here ?
 
Darat said:
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...
Click to expand...


But it’s quite obviously not the only one known to work. By default…apart from evidence of anything else. As I pointed out earlier…even being especially generous… there can be no more than 10% of the worlds population that can have any explicit understanding of the epistemology of science…simply by virtue of the fact that they’ve never pursued a scientific education.

So are we to conclude that the remaining billions are unconditional abject failures at everything? There is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion…quite the opposite.

…and do you honestly believe that all the practicing scientists of the world apply a scientific epistemology to their day to day life? Like I said…I have relative who’s a physics prof. at Cambridge and he would find the proposition utterly ridiculous.

Not to mention…that if we were to do a simple survey of the psychological community it would invariably yield the following results:
Not only do human beings unconditionally possess a functional epistemology besides science…but functioning exclusively within a scientific epistemology would be all-but impossible (because there are huge areas of existence that science has no capacity to explicitly adjudicate), dysfunctional (because life is not rational), and impractical (for no other reason than it is all-but-impossible and dysfunctional).
 
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Flat Earth Society exists. Does that mean that the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid isn't settled?

People proclaim that vaccines cause autism. All evidence says that vaccines are safe and effective. Is that not settled?

There's a thread on this forum where the OP claims that gravity is false and that you're pushed towards the ground because the Earth is expanding. Is that not settled?
 
Belz... said:
Serious question, Annnnoid: do you believe you are being rational and logical, here ?
Click to expand...


…before you bother…rationality and logic are not a function of science. Science is a function of rationality and logic. All of these are a function of reason…which is fundamentally guided by emotion…which exists within the vast mystery of human meaning.
 
annnnoid said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Yes.

This isn't hard to understand.

Unless you don't actually know what science is, if course. Then it's very easy to continue talking in circles about it, as you are so helpfully demonstrating.
 
Last edited:
And, in case anyone forgot, we're hip-deep in this nonsense because annnnoid laims that NDEs are evidence for consciousness outside the body. When confronted with the fact that this is utter tripe, he claims that it is valid because science is not the only valid epistemology.

So, of course, rather than actually present his alternative and showing that it is functional, he just runs in circles screaming "nuh-uh" at the top of his voice, making pointless arguments from incredulity and popularity that are wrong even if their premises are given as true, and generally failing to make any kind of point whatsoever.

This will contine ad infinitum.
 
Nonpareil said:
Yes.

This isn't hard to understand.

Unless you don't actually know what science is, if course. Then it's very easy to continue talking in circles about it, as you are so helpfully demonstrating.
Click to expand...


Well don’t keep us in suspense. What are these secrets of science that I don’t know?

…and while you’re at it…since at least 90% of the worlds population DON’T use an explicit scientific epistemology (because they couldn’t possibly have a clue what it even means)…how is it so many of them lead very successful lives…seeing as how they’re NOT using the ONLY valid epistemology?
 
annnnoid said:
There are vast amounts of evidence of consciousness outside of the brain. Science simply has no ability to explicitly adjudicate the issue…partly because it has yet to develop any significant capacity to adjudicate subjective experience. Thus, the question is simply unresolved.

You can’t definitively dismiss the evidence any more than those making the claims can insist on them. Neither side has any empirical advantage. So far the issue is simply unresolved.
Click to expand...

Hi annnoid, I notice that you have not presented that evidence in your post, care to present some?

Just for the sake of discussion.
 
Nonpareil said:
And, in case anyone forgot, we're hip-deep in this nonsense because annnnoid laims that NDEs are evidence for consciousness outside the body. When confronted with the fact that this is utter tripe, he claims that it is valid because science is not the only valid epistemology.

So, of course, rather than actually present his alternative and showing that it is functional, he just runs in circles screaming "nuh-uh" at the top of his voice, making pointless arguments from incredulity and popularity that are wrong even if their premises are given as true, and generally failing to make any kind of point whatsoever.

This will contine ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


Since you have the ability to summarily dismiss this evidence, you no doubt will find the following questions a piece of cake. Belz can't seem to handle them:

Where has it been definitively established that evidence is only valid if it can be scientifically adjudicated?
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?

I'm betting you won't be able to answer a single one....but feel free to prove me wrong.
 
annnnoid said:
So you are being facetious.
Click to expand...

I am most certainly not. I believe that every action anyone takes includes a belief that the action will benefit them, and that this "benefit" includes feelings and emotions. A person with little money giving to charity does not do it because being even shorter on money is good for them. They do it because how they feel afterwards more than makes up for the loss of money.

If you want to get married, you feel that the emotions involved in love are worth whatever negatives you see in a relationship, if any at all.

That's what a cost-benefit analysis does. And since those are scientific, they would be included in your "varieties of science you should refer to."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom