Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

[Dancing David]

I am wondering about the conjunction of the "scientific"+"materialism" because I am unsure that it is something that is needed to be scientific. So my first answer is that :
No science is not predicated upon materialism because that is an untestable hypothesis. There is no test that can determine if the ontology of the universe is dead matter, great mind or conjunction of minds.

The scientifc method does presuppose however that the universe behaves as though it is an existant, it could be a fabrication or a solipistic conjunction, but for the premise of science to work, there is the implicit conception of observation this combined with isotropy are the two great axioms of science.

I myself don't believe that science requires materialism, so perhaps I misunderstand the question?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

In order to be self-consistent, science certainly doesn't need to rely upon materialism. At the very most you might possibly legitimately argue that science needs to presuppose scientific realism. I would certainly disagree with that though.

Actually, Ian, instrumentalist theories of science are often quite popular among scientists - though they tend to be fairly localized and to become less popular the more established the particular area becomes. In any case, scientific realism does imply strict materialism, but strict materialism doesn't imply scientific realism.

Also:

Well . .yeah . .sure. Materialism is compatible with science. So what? That doesn't mean that it's justified by science, nor does it negate the fact that materialism is unintelligible.

This is just silly - you may not want to hold materialism and that's fine. However, even materialism's fiercest critics don't allege that materialism is in some way unintelligible. It's possibly the most intelligible metaphysical approach out there, whether or not it's right.

Finally, no, materialism is not a scientific theory, or in any way supported by science beyond the vague credence given to it by the fact that science continues to work reliably. It is, however, a foundational procedural standpoint from which to do science, just like the philosophical underpinnings of most things tend to be.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Ian,

I need you to answer this question for me: do you firmly believe in an immaterial component of reality?

 

[Interesting Ian]

In order to be self-consistent, science certainly doesn't need to rely upon materialism. At the very most you might possibly legitimately argue that science needs to presuppose scientific realism. I would certainly disagree with that though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, Ian, instrumentalist theories of science are often quite popular among scientists - though they tend to be fairly localized and to become less popular the more established the particular area becomes. In any case, scientific realism does imply strict materialism, but strict materialism doesn't imply scientific realism.

Scientific realism implies strict materialism?? That certainly is not the case. Any dualist position is compatible with scientific realism, and maybe even something like subjective idealism.

Also:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well . .yeah . .sure. Materialism is compatible with science. So what? That doesn't mean that it's justified by science, nor does it negate the fact that materialism is unintelligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is just silly - you may not want to hold materialism and that's fine. However, even materialism's fiercest critics don't allege that materialism is in some way unintelligible. It's possibly the most intelligible metaphysical approach out there, whether or not it's right.

It's silly?? It most certainly is not silly. I'm just telling it how it is.
I have argued for this elsewhere. I could paste in my argument should you wish. A strict materialism necessarily denies the existence of consciousness. I submit this is absurd as our own consciousness is the one thing we can be certain of the existence of more than anything else.

Finally, no, materialism is not a scientific theory, or in any way supported by science beyond the vague credence given to it by the fact that science continues to work reliably.

I fail to see how this gives any evidence for materialism.

It is, however, a foundational procedural standpoint from which to do science, just like the philosophical underpinnings of most things tend to be.

{shrugs} Well, it ought not to be. Much better if subjective idealism were the "foundational procedural standpoint from which to do science". Anyone who is a materialist is mindnumbingly stupid.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

I need you to answer this question for me: do you firmly believe in an immaterial component of reality?

Well I would certainly say consciousness is not material. And neither is the self. I feel most sympathetic towards subjective idealism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

All of which boil down to the expressed assumption that there is a consistant external reality.

Is there a reason you're trying to make one assumption into many? Well, yes, actually, you're Ian.

Yes jj, indeed there is a consistent external reality. But materialism goes somewhat beyond this bare position!

 

[Interesting Ian]

You misunderstand. If you assume (as Ian does) that "the tenets of "scientific materialism" cannot in principle be derived or from science or discovered by science,"

I do not assume anything. It's up for debate. This is why I started the thread.

then it's true by assumption that scientific materialism cannot be verified, because the verification process would constitute a scientific discovery.

As I say, I would be very happy if people could show that scientific materialism is scientific.

Basically, it's just a recasting of Ian's argument to reveal a potential question-begging, in the hopes that he won't try it once the fallacy has been pointed out.

How can it possibly be a fallacy asking if scientific materialism is scientific? I don't think you understand the purpose of this thread.

 

[Interesting Ian]

A clarification

There seems to be some confusion as to why I started this thread.

I am not specifically criticising the tenets of scientific materialism; namely the principles of objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism. What I'm asking is whether these tenets can be derived from science.

Now, if they cannot be, this doesn't in itself necessitate a defect in scientific materialism. However, I think calling it scientific materialism cannot be justified. This is the point I was trying to make. I could very well make the same point even if I entirely agreed with scientific materialism.

It wasn't meant as a philosophical debate about materialism, otherwise I would have started the thread in the philosophy forum.

You see?

 

[Dancing David]

posted by I Squared

A strict materialism necessarily denies the existence of consciousness.

I think that is merely an assertion, materialism as you define it presupposes that to be the case.

I don't think that scientific materialism is a closed system, it allows for the hypothesis of new forces all the time, it is a scientific system that is based upon what can be observed.

Demonstrate something that is not covered by current theory and the universe expands to contain it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is a pointless exercise. We can only concern ourselves with 'materialism' using the definition provided once we know what we mean by 'matter', and our understanding of the nature of the so-called "material world" changes all the time.

Matter is that which has an ontologically self-subsistent existence and which somehow gives rise to our perceptual sensations of it. Modern thinking generally rejects the notion of a material substance. Thus it is now generally held that an object is exhausted by its properties. Its properties are that which are described by science. So the properties are not our qualia, rather the qualia we experience is the minds interpretation of the underlying properties.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

I'm making the assumption that by "scientific materialism" you acctually mean science?

No I emphatically do not mean that. Science is just science. Scientific materialism is just materialism. It seems that materialists like to insert "scientific" in front of their metaphysic in order to give it some undeserved prestige. This annoys me.

If so, science embody:

objectivism: Yes
monism: I wouldn't say, the dabate about "unified scince" is all but dead, and no one really wants it back, but perhaps Edward O Wilson,
universalism: Not really.
reductionism: Not always,
the closure principle: No No No NO!
physicalism, Yes, Oh yes!

By what you and others have said, there's clearly some confusion about the meaning of these words. I'll have to define them. Not now though because feeling a bit knackered. Was drinking a lot last night.

 

[Z]

Maybe if you spent less time drinking you'd have passed school. You know - alcohol killing brain cells and all that.

Of course, those would be material brain cells, wouldn't they?

[pmod=Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]I know Ian brought it up, but please, let's not go there.[/pmod]

 

[Interesting Ian]

Maybe if you spent less time drinking you'd have passed school. You know - alcohol killing brain cells and all that.

Of course, those would be material brain cells, wouldn't they?

Your rudeness does not do you credit. Persist with this childish behaviour and I shall be putting you on ignore.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
No it [scientific materialism] isn't. It's a set of metaphysical assumptions.

Not according to these definitions:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+materialism

http://www.free-definition.com/Scientific-materialism.html

Scientific materialism is just materialism.

Apparently not.

As usual, this conversation will descend into hell before we will carefully define our terms.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Scientific materialism is just materialism. It seems that materialists like to insert "scientific" in front of their metaphysic in order to give it some undeserved prestige. This annoys me.

Did it ever occur to you that scientists are precisely trying to avoid anchoring science on a metaphysic? How many times are we going to have to beg you to let us do that before you stop yanking it back into your ontological quagmire? Really Ian, you're beating a dead horse when you chuckle at ontological materialism.

How about if we all stipulate that plain old materialism is stupid, so we can get on to discussing something more reasonable, such as scientific materialism?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Not according to these definitions:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+materialism

http://www.free-definition.com/Scientific-materialism.html

They are giving the definitions of naturalism, not scientific materialism. Scientific materialism means modern materialism (the rejection of material substance), not naturalism.

To repeat, the ideology of "scientific materialism" embodies a number of sacrosanct theories and a priori statements, namely the principles of objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism.

I do think though that naturalism and modern materialism (scientific materialism) are extremely similar. One of the problems we have here is that naturalism is ill-defined.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Did it ever occur to you that scientists are precisely trying to avoid anchoring science on a metaphysic? How many times are we going to have to beg you to let us do that before you stop yanking it back into your ontological quagmire? Really Ian, you're beating a dead horse when you chuckle at ontological materialism.

How about if we all stipulate that plain old materialism is stupid, so we can get on to discussing something more reasonable, such as scientific materialism?

~~ Paul

Even if modern materialists reject the notion of a material substance, it is still a metaphysic. After all they maintain that there is an objective world out there which would exist whether it is perceived or not. The material exhausts reality with consciousness either being derived from it or not existing. One can obtain all knowledge from an objective perspective (ie it ignores knowledge gained from the subjective perspective). They do not exist any non-physical influences etc etc.

I think all this qualifies it as a metaphysic, don't you?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
To repeat, the ideology of "scientific materialism" embodies a number of sacrosanct theories and a priori statements, namely the principles of objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism.

Could you refer us to a definition that says this?

Even if modern materialists reject the notion of a material substance, it is still a metaphysic. After all they maintain that there is an objective world out there which would exist whether it is perceived or not. The material exhausts reality with consciousness either being derived from it or not existing. One can obtain all knowledge from an objective perspective (ie it ignores knowledge gained from the subjective perspective). They do not exist any non-physical influences etc etc.

But we're talking about scientific materialism, not materialism. I have no idea what modern materialists claim, because that is an ontological position that I think is nonsense, as you know.

If scientific materialism makes any ontological claim, then it is nonsense.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In any event, whatever philosophical assumptions science relies on cannot be directly validated by science. If they could, they would not need to be assumptions.

Ian said:
Nevertheless the ideology of "scientific materialism" does embody a number of sacrosanct theories and a priori statements, namely the principles of objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism.

Wouldn't those be a posteriori statements now?

~~ Paul

 

[c0rbin]

You really are utterly clueless.

In only 18 posts. Well done, Ian.