Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

[Interesting Ian]

By the tenets of science, theories and hypotheses must be consonant with empirical data. If there are theories and hypotheses which either are not justified by any empirical data, or in principle could not be justified by any empirical data, then they are not scientific.

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.

Discuss.

 

[drkitten]

By the tenets of science, theories and hypotheses must be consonant with empirical data. If there are theories and hypotheses which either are not justified by any empirical data, or in principle could not be justified by any empirical data, then they are not scientific.



Discuss.

A typical elementary confusion. "Consonant with" does not necessarily imply "justified from." "Consonant with" merely implies that the negation cannot be justified from the available data. For example, the continuum hypothesis is consonant with the axioms of ZFC set theory -- as is the negation of the contiuum hypothesis. Similarly, our current empirical data is consonant both with the idea of life existing on one of the moons of Jupiter as well as with the idea of Jupiter's moons being lifeless.

In the event that the empirical data underdetermines the set of possible hypotheses, there may be several competing hypotheses, all of which are equally consonant with the available data. There is nothing "unscientific" about accepting a unique hypothesis among the candidates as a working theory -- especially if accepting a candidate can lead to a prediction that can later be used to develop more empirical data.

A theory of life on Europa cannot be empirically justified. It is nonetheless scientific, especially in the context of designing equipment to test for such life.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

A typical elementary confusion. "Consonant with" does not necessarily imply "justified from."

Then replace "consonant" with "justified from".

"Consonant with" merely implies that the negation cannot be justified from the available data. For example, the continuum hypothesis is consonant with the axioms of ZFC set theory -- as is the negation of the contiuum hypothesis. Similarly, our current empirical data is consonant both with the idea of life existing on one of the moons of Jupiter as well as with the idea of Jupiter's moons being lifeless.

And also consonant with the existence of magical invisible bunny rabbits.

Let's stop nitpicking and answer the question hmmm?

 

[Prester John]

I have consulted a dictionary and provide you with the results:

a priori : Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

materialism : Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

objectivism : Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.

monism : The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

universalism : Theology. The doctrine of universal salvation.

reductionism : An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set: “For the last 400 years science has advanced by reductionism... The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole” (John Holland).

closure principle : In psychology, the principle that, when one views fragmentary stimuli forming a nearly complete figure, one tends to ignore the missing parts and perceive the figure as whole.

physicalism : The view that all that exists is ultimately physical

defintions provoded by Dictionary.com

 

[Psi Baba]

Any knowledge verification system, such as science, naturally relies on residing within a self-consistent framework, which you would derisively call the materialist universe. So far, most, in fact, nearly all, scientific principles that have been discovered have held up and remained consistent. So in a world that is assumed to be material, that is, where principles are consistent, science works and things are predictable and provable or at least testable. In a world that is assumed to be otherwise, then yes, science might be inapplicable, but then we're now talking about a fantasy world where literally anything can happen and discussing the hows, whens, wheres, and whys becomes totally pointless. As for "scientific materialism" being an "ideology," well that is a philosophical label that could only be valid in a non-materialistic world. If everything is nothing more than philosophical ideas and abstract nuances, then there is little point in discussing anything at all, since nothing will ever be accomplished and no conclusions will ever be agreed upon.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

Then replace "consonant" with "justified from".

Then your original statement becomes false by inspection :

By the tenets of science, theories and hypotheses must be [justified from] empirical data.

In particular, a counterexample (a theory that life exists on Europa) has already been presented. Almost any scientific belief now widely accepted (and justified) has passed through a stage where it was "merely" theorized but could not be justified. Nonetheless, these "mere theories" were scientific. As a criterion for distinguishing scientific theories and hypotheses, your proposal simply doesn't work.

"Magic invisible pink bunny rabbits on the moons of Jupiter" is an unscientific belief for other reasons than not being consonant with empirical data. I will leave you to stew on what those reasons might be. In the meantime, enjoy your straw men.

 

[jj]

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.

Discuss.

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.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

By the tenets of science, theories and hypotheses must be [justified from] empirical data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In particular, a counterexample (a theory that life exists on Europa) has already been presented.

"justified from" was terminology that you suggested. I said consonant with. But you objected to that word. So let's just say that the tenets of "scientific materialism" cannot in principle be derived or from science or discovered by science. Therefore is "scientific materialism" scientific?

"Magic invisible pink bunny rabbits on the moons of Jupiter" is an unscientific belief for other reasons than not being consonant with empirical data. I will leave you to stew on what those reasons might be. In the meantime, enjoy your straw men.

Where did I state they are a scientific belief?? They aren't, and neither is "scientific materialism". They are both faiths.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Scientific materialism is a set of epistemological assumptions, that is, a philosophy. It is not science, so therefore can only be quasi-scientific at best. What we hope is that if the assumptions are incorrect, scientific work will eventually make that clear by discovering counterexamples.

I don't think anyone argues that fundamental philosophies require assumptions.

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

"justified from" was terminology that you suggested. I said consonant with. But you objected to that word. So let's just say that the tenets of "scientific materialism" cannot in principle be derived or from science or discovered by science. Therefore is "scientific materialism" scientific?

If by "scientific" you mean, "derived from science or discovered by science," then the answer is "no, by assumption."

If by "scientific" you mean, "compatible with the set of empirical facts derived from science or discovered by science," then the answer is "yes, as previously demonstrated."

If by "scientific" you mean "subject to verification," then the answer is "no, by assumption."

If by "scientific" you mean, "held as a philosophical position by all practicing scientists," then the answer is "no."

If by "scientific" you mean "held as a philosophical position by the majority of practicing scientists," then the answer is probably "yes," but I haven't the survey data available to justify that answer in detail.

If by "scientific" you mean "true," then the answer is "unknown."

If the question is "is the revised question as posed by Ian still badly phrased and ambiguous," then the answer is "yes, as demonstrated."

What do you mean by the word "scientific"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

drkitten said:
If by "scientific" you mean "subject to verification," then the answer is "no, by assumption."

The assumptions cannot be verified directly, but they can be verified by virtue of finding no counterexamples over many millennia.

Of course, some would say that counterexamples have been found. And so we're back to square one.

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

The assumptions cannot be verified directly, but they can be verified by virtue of finding no counterexamples over many millennia.

Of course, some would say that counterexamples have been found. And so we're back to square one.

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

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.

More generally, I need hardly remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Failure to find a counterexample proves nothing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry, I should not have used the word verified in the second half of my sentence. I thought it was clear that I meant "informally verified." How about this:

The assumptions cannot be verified directly, but they can be supported by virtue of finding no counterexamples over many millennia.

Failure to find a counterexample proves nothing.

But it does make a strong suggestion.

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

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.

Medieval theologians claimed light was fundamentally different from the normal objects people had experience with. We now know this to be incorrect -- their very specific ideas about the nature of the universe were wrong, and the definitions they used based on those ideas were also wrong.

 

[Batman Jr.]

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

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.

More generally, I need hardly remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Failure to find a counterexample proves nothing.

And neither does the absence of evidence insinuate evidence of existence. I'm a bit confused as to what premises we're setting off on in this conversation. Whether you accept materialism as incontrovertible fact or only assume it true for purposes of pragmatism is very important for us to know in order for this discourse to come to a logical conclusion (I personally see myself as a disciple of the latter philosophy). So, which is it?

And by the way, self-consistency for me never counted as proof. There are many things supposed by us to be illusory which are self-consistent in appearance (e.g. physics in a video game). In fact, it may even be argued that the citation of consistency is an example circular logic in that we base the most fundamental of our principles of coherency on the universe in the first place.

 

[Anders]

By the tenets of science, theories and hypotheses must be consonant with empirical data. If there are theories and hypotheses which either are not justified by any empirical data, or in principle could not be justified by any empirical data, then they are not scientific.

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.

Discuss.

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

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!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Folks, I think this is a philosophical discussion. Scientific materialism is a set of epistemological assumptions about what we can know. Actually, I think it's two assumptions:

1. Reality can be described by a set of logical rules.
2. Those rules can be determined by observing the universe.
   [/list=1]
   I don't see how those assumptions can be verified scientifically, but they can be shown incorrect by a counterexample.
   
   Note there are no ontological statements involved, such as "Everything is made out of material stuff." That's why it's called scientific materialism. I think naturalism is a synonym?
   
   ~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

[Any knowledge verification system, such as science, naturally relies on residing within a self-consistent framework, which you would derisively call the materialist universe.

First lesson:

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.

So far, most, in fact, nearly all, scientific principles that have been discovered have held up and remained consistent. So in a world that is assumed to be material,

I'm sorry??? I most certainly do not assume that. I am convinced a material world does not exist.

that is, where principles are consistent,

Please expalin to me why principles would not be consistent if a material world does not exist.

science works and things are predictable and provable or at least testable. In a world that is assumed to be otherwise, then yes, science might be inapplicable, but then we're now talking about a fantasy world where literally anything can happen and discussing the hows, whens, wheres, and whys becomes totally pointless.

You really are utterly clueless.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Scientific materialism is a set of epistemological assumptions,

No it isn't. It's a set of metaphysical assumptions.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is "scientific materialism" scientific?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"justified from" was terminology that you suggested. I said consonant with. But you objected to that word. So let's just say that the tenets of "scientific materialism" cannot in principle be derived or from science or discovered by science. Therefore is "scientific materialism" scientific?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If by "scientific" you mean, "derived from science or discovered by science," then the answer is "no, by assumption."

By assumption?? What assumption?? Answer the question. Is "scientific materialism" scientific or not? What are you unable to understand about this question?

If by "scientific" you mean, "compatible with the set of empirical facts derived from science or discovered by science," then the answer is "yes, as previously demonstrated."

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.

If by "scientific" you mean "subject to verification," then the answer is "no, by assumption."

"Subject to verification"?? You clearly understand nothing about science. Why are you wasting my time??

Also I need to ask what assumption?? The premises of materialism are either "subject to verification," as you put it, or they are not. One does not assume anything. One is simply stating cold hard facts. Get it?? Nope I guess not

If by "scientific" you mean, "held as a philosophical position by all practicing scientists," then the answer is "no."

If by "scientific" you mean "held as a philosophical position by the majority of practicing scientists," then the answer is probably "yes," but I haven't the survey data available to justify that answer in detail.

I have less than zero interest in whether scientists consider it scientific or not, I'm asking whether it is scientific. What are you unable to understand by this outstandingly simple question?

If by "scientific" you mean "true," then the answer is "unknown."

Seems like you need to look up the word "scientific" instead of wasting my time by submitting vacuous posts.

If the question is "is the revised question as posed by Ian still badly phrased and ambiguous," then the answer is "yes, as demonstrated."

It is not badly phrased nor ambiguous. The fact that you think otherwise is adequate testimony to your breathtaking stupidity.

You're not arguing against against BillHoyt now. So just don't go there matey.

What do you mean by the word "scientific"?

The normal standard definition.