I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Nonpareil]

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

Apparently, its basic definition.

Science is applied rational skepticism. In other words, it is the practice of making hypotheses, testing them, checking them against observed fact, and drawing conclusions appropriately.

You literally do this every second of every day. If you didn't, you couldn't function on even the most basic level. Object permanence woukd not exist. Communication would be impossible. You would never eat, because you could not make the connection between hunger and food.

Informality and ignorance of the technical terms involved changes nothing.

And we're still waiting for even the most basic form of your claimed alternative.

 

[ehcks]

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

If it can't be scientifically adjudicated, it literally does not exist. By definition.

 

[Belz...]

Right. So do let me know what variety of science I should refer to when I want to get married.

Just because science can explain everything doesn't mean you should use science for everything. But you knew that, didn't you ?

But it’s quite obviously not the only one known to work.

Name another.

…before you bother…rationality and logic are not a function of science.

Answer the question: do you believe you are being rational and logical, here ?

So you are being facetious.

Says the poster who uses nothing but snark, ignorance and incredulity to make his point.

 

[Belz...]

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:

I can handle them just fine, but since your questions are stupid, I don't feel the need to address them. Most of them have nothing to do with the question at hand, and the others are set-ups to goalpost moving.

Here's an example:

Where has it been definitively established that NDE’s are explicitly a result of oxygen deprivation and only oxygen deprivation?

That's both a strawman and word salad containing copious amounts of weasel words.

Read the following slowly: you don't need to be 100% certain of something before you draw a conclusion. If it were the case, we wouldn't know anything.

 

[Belz...]

...so answer the questions then.

No, YOU make some effort now. Stop demanding that everyone do your work for you.

 

[marplots]

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.

Seriously? Is it that difficult to imagine living in the world with no scientific knowledge whatsoever? How does the rest of the animal kingdom manage the feat?

If you mean to say that scientific understandings are the only satisfactory answer to epistemological questions, plainly that isn't so either.

So, I'm at a loss for what you mean by "is the only one we know of that works."

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.

When you say testing, I take it you mean some kind of scientific process? If so, doesn't that strike you as a bit circular? Would you accept a test of science based solely on what the Bible teaches?

"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.

I disagree with the idea that materialism is equivalent to a scientific understanding of the world. The second is rather more focused and the first much broader. In fact, the idealist would say that science "works" because that's the way we imagine things to be. But consider this problem: how can we be assured, by the methods on offer, that we are narrowing down our search for the real instead of just ignoring those parts which don't "work?"

In other words, why should I think the universe is understandable at all, by any human methodology? Or, in a similar vein, could the scientific method capture anything other than the measurements and conclusions we can reach with it? Don't the experiments, in some very real sense, create the results? (For an example of this, I offer up the coastline of England problem.)

 

[H'ethetheth]

If it can't be scientifically adjudicated, it literally does not exist. By definition.

I'm not sure if that's true. At least, it seems to have been hit and miss when scientifically adjudicating moral values and especially their prioritization. I hope nobody would argue that moral values do not exist.

By the way, I'm not saying it's impossible to apply rational argument to morals and ethics, or to research moral values scientifically, but the outcome of rational moral arguments always depends on some values that can differ wildly between people. (See for instance the politics subforum).


ETA: Or are you talking strictly about evidence? If so, ignore my post.

 

[tsig]

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.

You are implying that nothing can ever be settled. Shall we hold our mind perpetually open on questions when all the evidence is on one side.

Arguing that reality is not real is a strange position when on one side is all the evidence of the five senses while on the other side there's nothing but idle speculation.

 

[ehcks]

Seriously? Is it that difficult to imagine living in the world with no scientific knowledge whatsoever? How does the rest of the animal kingdom manage the feat?

Well, um... they don't. Ivon Pavlov proved that quite thoroughly.

 

[ehcks]

I'm not sure if that's true. At least, it seems to have been hit and miss when scientifically adjudicating moral values and especially their prioritization. I hope nobody would argue that moral values do not exist.

By the way, I'm not saying it's impossible to apply rational argument to morals and ethics, or to research moral values scientifically, but the outcome of rational moral arguments always depends on some values that can differ wildly between people. (See for instance the politics subforum).


ETA: Or are you talking strictly about evidence? If so, ignore my post.

Well, I was talking about evidence. Physical things and their effects.

I could get into an argument about how moral values don't exist, and that it's actually about what effects certain actions have on people. Murder is wrong because if murder was right anyone could just kill me and get away with it. I don't want that so I say that it's wrong. But that's for another thread.

 

[Nonpareil]

...so answer the questions then.

Or, here's a thought: you could present your alternative epistemology, show why it functions, and shut us all up in one fell swoop.

It really is that simple. Your questions are alternately stupid, irrelevant, straw men, and indicators of a complete and utter lack of any understanding of the terms you toss about, so there isn't any point in answering them. My utter lack of interest in entertaining your demands is only compounded by the fact that chopping up larger posts to confront point-by-point is almost impossible on the phone keyboard I am currently using.

Particularly if you can, at any point, present an alternative epistemology that renders this entire discussion obsolete.

So why don't you?

 

[marplots]

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?

Well, lets see. Could we perhaps look to an academic discipline focused directly on the questions we have been talking about? Why, I have just the fellows in mind, and, lo and behold, epistemology is a living question in the philosophy department. When the experts concerned still think it worth discussing, I'd have to say that "settled" isn't the right description.

On the other hand, I see where most religions believe in God, so that question must somehow be "settled." Apparently, while I wasn't looking, I lost the whole God argument.

Here's a rule of thumb. If people still think it's worth discussing, and they think they have a chance to sway their peers to their point of view, it's probably not in the settled column.

 

[ehcks]

Here's a rule of thumb. If people still think it's worth discussing, and they think they have a chance to sway their peers to their point of view, it's probably not in the settled column.

Which is exactly what I had just asked you about, and you deigned to answer.

People still think the idea that Neil Armstrong didn't land on the moon is worth discussing and that they have a chance to sway their peers. Is it settled or not?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well, I was talking about evidence. Physical things and their effects.

I could get into an argument about how moral values don't exist, and that it's actually about what effects certain actions have on people. Murder is wrong because if murder was right anyone could just kill me and get away with it. I don't want that so I say that it's wrong. But that's for another thread.

I look forward to that thread, because that's not a very subtle example, if you don't mind me saying. The uncontroversial values aren't the interesting ones here, and even then there are several instances where many people would find murder morally defensible or even just (e.g. war or the death penalty).

Also, I asked you to ignore my post. You didn't ignore my post.

 

[Nonpareil]

Seriously? Is it that difficult to imagine living in the world with no scientific knowledge whatsoever?

Yes.

"Scientific knowledge" covers quite a lot more than most people think it does. Science is not limited to formal laboratory study. It is used casually and informally at every point of your life. I have been over this before.

How does the rest of the animal kingdom manage the feat?

They don't.

Animals draw conclusions from observations the same way we do.

If you mean to say that scientific understandings are the only satisfactory answer to epistemological questions, plainly that isn't so either.

I've yet to see a case in which it isn't.

When you say testing, I take it you mean some kind of scientific process?

No. I mean "this is the prediction it makes, is that prediction correct Y/N".

Science is literally the only one that reliably, consistently turns up "Y". When it doesn't, it is demonstrably due to a flaw in the experiment, not with science itself.

No other epistemology has ever managed that.

I disagree with the idea that materialism is equivalent to a scientific understanding of the world.

They aren't equivalent.

Science is the methodology. Materialism is the conclusion we inevitably reach.

In fact, the idealist would say that science "works" because that's the way we imagine things to be.

A leprechaunist would say that gravity "works" because invisible leprechauns move everything around in such a way that it appears exactly as if Newton's theories are true.

There is a difference between ideas being consistent with observed reality and being rational.

Idealism is technically possible. It is in no way rational.

in other words, why should I think the universe is understandable at all, by any human methodology?

Because it is demonstrably so.

Or, in a similar vein, could the scientific method capture anything other than the measurements and conclusions we can reach with it? Don't the experiments, in some very real sense, create the results? (For an example of this, I offer up the coastline of England problem.)

Afraid I can't look that up at the moment. But in answer to the general question, we have no rational reason to believe that anything science cannot study is real. By definition, there is no evidence of any such thing, because if evidence existed, it could be studied scientifically.

Yes, it is a bit of a Catch-22. But that's because science is, at its core, very simple. "I have a question. In order to find the answer, I will look at all the facts and draw a rational conclusion without making unwarranted leaps or assuming things not in evidence".

That's it. That's all there really is to it. "Don't assume; look at the facts". Everything else is just degrees of formality, from casually assuming that a door will open into the same room it always has to building electron microscopes to try and unlock more fiddly secrets.

 

[marplots]

Which is exactly what I had just asked you about, and you deigned to answer.

People still think the idea that Neil Armstrong didn't land on the moon is worth discussing and that they have a chance to sway their peers. Is it settled or not?

Are their peers the people you'd expect to know? Are they the acknowledged experts? If NASA scientists are debating it, then I'd say it wasn't settled.

So, is the question of God or no God settled?

 

[ehcks]

Are their peers the people you'd expect to know? Are they the acknowledged experts? If NASA scientists are debating it, then I'd say it wasn't settled.

So, is the question of God or no God settled?

There is no evidence that any god of any religion exists. There is instead evidence that the gods of most religions are mutually exclusive with reality.

There is no evidence that any other possible god exists. There is instead evidence that the universe does not need a god.

The word god itself has no clear and consistent meaning. The question "does god exist" is therefore senseless.

It's settled, in the sense that there is no point of including "god" in any scientific effort much beyond psychology and the question of why people believe in it in the first place.

And for my third attempt, there's a new movie claiming geocentrism is true. Obviously they believe in it and are trying to convince their peers. Is it settled or not that the Earth is not the true and literal center of the entire universe?

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Prove that science is the only valid epistemology.

Science works. Nothing else does.

 

[ehcks]

Nevermind.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

If you make claims that are obviously wrong, that have already been made and refuted multiple times, you get short shrift. If you don't like being bluntly told that you are wrong, there's a simple solution: Don't be wrong.