I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[PixyMisa]

Replace the word science with the word God, and it should become apparent.

Yes: You're raising false equivalencies again.

Neither is open to criticism or discussion. The die is cast, the issue is moot; what's for lunch?

If you don't like established facts, that's entirely your problem.

Does science work to explain our world? Obviously, yes.

Does anything else? No.

You could ask why does science work?, or how do we know that science works?, or even what does it mean for science to "work"? Those are meaningful questions. But those are not the questions you have chosen to ask.

Why do we even have a religion and philosophy sub-forum? "Science works. Nothing else does. Case closed."

There are valid questions of philosophy. You're not asking any of them.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

The truth of the matter is settled; lots of people remain wrong. This is hardly unusual. Indeed, it's rather the human condition.

 

[tsig]

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?

Define god then we will have something to talk about. Right now you're asking us to take a shot at a black cat in a dark closet at midnight.

 

[Brian-M]

…given the fact that nobody has any idea of the specific relationship between consciousness and the brain…

Only because there's no consensus about what they mean by consciousness.

If you regard consciousness as simply a type of feedback loop in mental processes then the relationship is obvious; consciousness is a type of behavior performed by the brain.

 

[Brian-M]

Are people getting paid by the ellipse around here and not telling me?

   ...       ...  ... ... ...     ... ...
    ...     ...   ...           ...     ...
     ...   ...    ...            ...
      ... ...     ... ... ...       ...
        ...       ...                  ...
        ...       ...            ...     ...
        ...       ... ... ...      ... ...

 

[Belz...]

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?

Do they have an epistemology ?

 

[Belz...]

Science works. Nothing else does.

That's not quite fair. Other things work as well, just nowhere near as well. They either do not return the right answer but are functional, or return the right answer by accident, or produce crude but effective results, etc.

 

[Brian-M]

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.

Hmmm....

epistemology (plural epistemologies)

1. (uncountable) The branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge; theory of knowledge, asking such questions as "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?".
2. (countable) A particular theory of knowledge.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epistemology

Can you please explain why any of the actions you listed would require the use of a theory of knowledge to perform?

Because if you can do these things simply by accepting information provided by others or from provided from past experience, then your question is nonsensical.

Prove
that
science
is
the
only
valid
epistemology.

Easily done.

Science is the aggregate of every epistemology that reliably works. For example, logic, math, empiricism. Anything that reliably works, science accepts.

Therefore any epistemology which isn't accepted by science has not been demonstrated to reliably work.

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

This question is a bit like asking what kind of mathematics you'd perform to discover whether or not you like eating apples. It's simply non-applicable.

I suppose you could turn to epistemology to determine whether or not you know your fiancée actually exists, but deciding whether or not to marry isn't a matter of discovering or determining the reliability of knowledge, it's a matter of personal preference.

Nothing to do with epistemology at all.

…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?

Because they use a non-explicit epistemology they've worked out for themselves, most of which are also used by science.

Sure, science uses a clear process of logic and reason, but that doesn't mean that people can't develop a vague understanding of logic and reason on their own. In fact, most people do, and end up using fragments of scientific method every day in their own lives without realizing it.

 

[PixyMisa]

This question is a bit like asking what kind of mathematics you'd perform to discover whether or not you like eating apples. It's simply non-applicable.

It's more like asking what branch of mathematics you'd use to work out whether eating apples is good. Without defining "good", the question is meaningless, and that is why mathematics is not applicable. Nothing is applicable when answering an undefined question.

And all normative questions are undefined. When you define them properly, they stop being normative.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It's more like asking what branch of mathematics you'd use to work out whether eating apples is good. Without defining "good", the question is meaningless, and that is why mathematics is not applicable. Nothing is applicable when answering an undefined question.

And all normative questions are undefined. When you define them properly, they stop being normative.

Who decides what properly is? You???

You are basically saying that you decide what good and wrong is, based on how you think.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It's more like asking what branch of mathematics you'd use to work out whether eating apples is good. Without defining "good", the question is meaningless, and that is why mathematics is not applicable. Nothing is applicable when answering an undefined question.

And all normative questions are undefined. When you define them properly, they stop being normative.

You: I define good as A and not B.
Me: I define good as B and not A.

What now, PixyMisa? How do you resolve that one using science?

 

[marplots]

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?

As long as people think the question worth raising and debating, then no, it isn't settled, at least within that group and those who choose to engage with them.

Why is this so? Because the only authority we have to appeal to is ourselves. There is no authority above our own interests and understandings. We are the ones wondering, so the "settled" bit is comment about us, not reality.

Now, suppose no one cared enough to see the movie, thinking it frank nonsense. The question generated no interest because no one thought it worth the trouble. Then you'd have a case for "settled." You could also say that among a certain group the issue was sterile and hence, settled. I expect, that in the scientific community, that's just what the response would be toward geocentrism.

But - and what an important "but" it is - the scientific community is not the sole arbiter of value in questions of epistemology. It cannot be that a scientific judgement binds all humans for all time, and without regard for other's concerns. This is especially so when an entire academic discipline (maybe two if you count religious studies) holds the question as not-yet-settled. To not acknowledge this is to just restate the claim that science, and hence materialism, is the sole arbiter of what we should take to be real - the sole way to understand the world around us. And what hubris it is to assert that bit, say the matter is settled, pack your bags and catch the next bus back home.

I hope I've made the distinction clear enough. So clear, in fact, that we can mark it down as settled, at least between us.

 

[marplots]

Science works. Nothing else does.

Please explain how my dog manages to get through his day without it. (I suspect he's a materialist, but no scientist.)

 

[marplots]

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.

That's actually very good advice. I shall strive to be not wrong from here on out. I might not make it to right, but I'll at least try to stay in the middle ground between the two, since the "we don't really know" is such a vast terrain to explore.

(Unless, of course, that last statement is wrong. Then there's no hope for me.)

 

[Pixel42]

Please explain how my dog manages to get through his day without it. (I suspect he's a materialist, but no scientist.)

My three month old kitten has observed that a saucer of Whiskas cat milk has so far been provided with a particular one of the several meals a day he is currently given, and has used this observation to make a prediction. When I put out some food at the approximate time of this meal he runs to the saucer, ignoring the food, and waits (loudly) for the milk. At no other meal does he pay any attention to the saucer.

All animals make predictions based on observations.

 

[marplots]

My three month old kitten has observed that a saucer of Whiskas cat milk has so far been provided with a particular one of the several meals a day he is currently given, and has used this observation to make a prediction. When I put out some food at the approximate time of this meal he runs to the saucer, ignoring the food, and waits (loudly) for the milk. At no other meal does he pay any attention to the saucer.

All animals make predictions based on observations.

Excellent. So the world works, even for animals, without the scientific method and simply by using association? I think we've found a technique I can apply in my daily life. Simple, effective, and within my budget.

 

[Belz...]

Who decides what properly is? You???

This is just the arrogance of ignorance. Why don't you and Annnnoid educate yourselves on science, how it works and what it's achieved ?

 

[Belz...]

Excellent. So the world works, even for animals, without the scientific method and simply by using association?

I love the fact that you completely missed Pixel's point that this kind of observation IS akin to the scientific method. It's almost as if you're doing it deliberately.

 

[marplots]

I love the fact that you completely missed Pixel's point that this kind of observation IS akin to the scientific method. It's almost as if you're doing it deliberately.

I did miss it. She was saying her cat uses the scientific method? What an interesting idea. I have a tree that is exploring the ground beneath it, searching for nutrients - is the tree also a scientist?

Or perhaps we have a bit of anthropomorphizing sneaking in?

I like the game. Let's see how it works with my dog. He believes I am the one true creator God in his life, our house, and the world at large. He prays to me for succor, justice and to meet his daily needs. All I seem to require in return is his worshipful loyalty.

He observes that I command magical powers, among which is the ability to make food appear without hunting, that I can create light at will and even control the weather in the house.

I try to be a just God, and I must say, I admire his faith - how he rejects commonsense laws of cause and effect and instead, looks to my divine will to alter circumstances as I see fit and when he is able to influence me to do so.

Or, I'm wrong to anthropomorphize any of this and my dog is just a dog.

 

[Pixel42]

Making predictions based on observations is a lot closer to the scientific method that it is to idealism. Animals certainly seem to manage perfectly well without the latter.