Poll: Can logical arguments disprove materialism at all

[UndercoverElephant]

This is prompted by a PM exchange with Tricky

What I want to know is this: I have heard it stated before, by a professional philosopher, that "Logical arguments cannot convince us that physicalism is not true." He was basically saying that he believed that not-physicalist explanations of reality were so hard for him to stomach that no logical argument could ever convince him it to abandon physicalism.

How do people here feel about that?

 

[Cosmo]

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that logic won't really help with respect to materialism and the nature of reality is an empirical question. I believe that our best science will one day answer the question for us.

 

[Cosmo]

On another note, Geoff, your bias is blatantly showing in your poll options.

Compare "no logical argument could convince me that physicalism is false" to "I don't think it is possible to disprove materialism with a logical argument" in the second and fourth poll options.

As such, I will not vote in this poll.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am quite happy for the precise words to be correct in the poll options - MODS - please change them all to "convince". I don't see it makes much difference. You've made your point though: No argument can convince you, and you believe empirical science can do so.

This is of course silly, because it is quite impossible to answer metaphysical questions with empirical science. So your response amounts to:

"Physicalism is true, and nothing will convince me otherwise."

 

[Roboramma]

If someone really did construct a valid logical argument that showed materialism to be false, and I could comprehend it, I'd accept it. So in that sense, my answer is yes.

On the other hand I find it very* unlikely that such an argument exists. In that sense, my answer is no.

I also should point out that I don't preclude the posibility that someone could offer a logical argument that such arguments disproving materialism are themselves impossible.

*very very very very very very very very very... (oh, carry on)

 

[Jeremy]

I would vote for " I am a materialist, and I have yet to see a logical argument that disproves physicalism."
However, since no such option is available, I will not vote.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If someone really did construct a valid logical argument that showed materialism to be false, and I could comprehend it, I'd accept it. So in that sense, my answer is yes.

On the other hand I find it very* unlikely that such an argument exists. In that sense, my answer is no.

I also should point out that I don't preclude the posibility that someone could offer a logical argument that such arguments disproving materialism are themselves impossible.

*very very very very very very very very very... (oh, carry on)

Sounds like you are saying the same thing as cosmo. There are serious implications from such a stance. Science can't disprove physicalism - it's not equipped to do so. So if logical arguments can't convince you either, then nothing will - and it has taken on the status of a quasi-religious belief. It just happens to be a quasi-religious belief you are very very very sure is true.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I would vote for " I am a materialist, and I have yet to see a logical argument that disproves physicalism."
However, since no such option is available, I will not vote.

That wasn't the question. I'm not interested in whether or not you think you've seen such an argument. I'm interested in whether you think it is possible that any argument could convince you ever. Two people have already admitted it couldn't. If no argument would convince you, then you'd always claim you'd never seen such an argument.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I doubt there is a logical argument that could destroy materialism, idealism, or many other -isms. If there was, I think some philosopher would have found it by now.

However, I have not seen a proof that such an argument is impossible, so I'm open to suggestions.

~~ Paul

 

[Cosmo]

So your response amounts to: "Physicalism is true, and nothing will convince me otherwise."

I'm interested in whether you think it is possible that any argument could convince you ever. Two people have already admitted it couldn't.

Geoff seems intent on speaking for me (and others). You can take your poll and shove it, Geoff, until you learn some basic manners.

 

[Giz]

This is prompted by a PM exchange with Tricky

What I want to know is this: I have heard it stated before, by a professional philosopher, that "Logical arguments cannot convince us that physicalism is not true." He was basically saying that he believed that not-physicalist explanations of reality were so hard for him to stomach that no logical argument could ever convince him it to abandon physicalism.

How do people here feel about that?

I think you have a tendency to fall into a similar trap to that which you accuse scientists of doing (i.e. forgetting that their mathematical models are a description of reality and not reality itself).

Philosophers using sophistry and word games to try and determine the ultimate nature of things... do they remember that language is a tool and not the universe itself?

 

[Roboramma]

Sounds like you are saying the same thing as cosmo. There are serious implications from such a stance. Science can't disprove physicalism - it's not equipped to do so. So if logical arguments can't convince you either, then nothing will - and it has taken on the status of a quasi-religious belief. It just happens to be a quasi-religious belief you are very very very sure is true.

No, that's the opposite of what I said. I said that if such an argument exists, I would be convince by it. If anyone showed me the argument (assuming I could comprehend it) I would be convinced by it.

I just find it very unlikely that it does exist. Since this thread is about debating why I am a materialist - ie. why I consider materialism true, then I don't see why you are addressing that.
Maybe I'm not stating this well. Let me try to make it clear - the reason that I find it very unlikely that a logical argument that shows materialism to false exists is that I find it very unlikely that materialism is false.

Are you saying that it's necessarily a quasi-religious belief to consider it very unlikely that materialism is false?

I am entirely open to new arguments. That doesn't mean I have to find it likely that any will come along.

 

[Roboramma]

So if logical arguments can't convince you either,

I'd just like to point out the irony that this statement was part of a response to a post containing this statement:

If someone really did construct a valid logical argument that showed materialism to be false, and I could comprehend it, I'd accept it. So in that sense, my answer is yes.

Which basically says that a logical argument would convince me.

Yes, I went on to state my opinions about the plausibility of such an argument existing, but I never said I thought it was impossible, or that I would not be convinced by one.

 

[Upchurch]

I think you have a tendency to fall into a similar trap to that which you accuse scientists of doing (i.e. forgetting that their mathematical models are a description of reality and not reality itself).

Philosophers using sophistry and word games to try and determine the ultimate nature of things... do they remember that language is a tool and not the universe itself?

That was my impression, as well. All logical arguments are based on a set of assumptions that are allowed as given. Any logical argument is only as valid as its givens, and even then a logically valid given need not necessarily be reflective of reality.

As materialism could be viewed as a logical argument based on a certain set of givens, an argument that disproves materialism would have to be one that either has the same set of givens but leads to an erroneous or paradoxical conclusion or shows that those givens are in someway inconsistant with one another and, thus, invalid.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I doubt there is a logical argument that could destroy materialism, idealism, or many other -isms. If there was, I think some philosopher would have found it by now.

There's hundreds of them, and many of them have been widely accepted for centuries. That is why I am asking whether people believe ANY argument could convince them. If they don't, then there is no point in telling people there aren't any because even if they'd seen one, they would fail to recognise it.

 

[chriswl]

Re. your poll options:

I'm a materialist, and I think it is possible to disprove physicalism with a logical argument

But it could only be possible if such an argument exists and I have no idea whether this is true, I'm just pretty sure I haven't heard it. So I cant answer yes and claim that it is definitely possible to disprove physicalism in this way. I'm certainly willing to listen to logical arguments against physicalism and consider whether they are true.

I am a materialist and no logical argument could convince me that physicalism is false

None that I have heard has convinced me but I can't claim that no such argument exists. So I can't answer yes to this either.

You don't have an option that makes any sense - what are you trying to show, that materialists are either closed-minded or don't really believe in materialism?

 

[chriswl]

There's hundreds of them, and many of them have been widely accepted for centuries. That is why I am asking whether people believe ANY argument could convince them. If they don't, then there is no point in telling people there aren't any because even if they'd seen one, they would fail to recognise it.

There are arguments for and against every philosophical position. All your arguments have arguments against them, and so on, ad infinitum. It's absurd to think we should agree with you because you assure us there are many good arguments against our position. Next week someone else will come round and give us the same line against any new position we adopt.

You can't short-circuit the debate by saying that lots of philosophers think X is impossible, especially when lots of other philosophers don't. There's no short cut to making your case and logically convincing people. And you will never do that if you think your opponents are stupid or crazy - this means you don't understand their position.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You don't have an option that makes any sense - what are you trying to show, that materialists are either closed-minded or don't really believe in materialism?

I am saying that the power of their belief that materialism is true overrides any logical argument that could possibly be provided. I am arguing that their reasoning will always be that it is so unlikeley that materialism is false that they wouldn't be able to accept such a valid argument against materialism even if they saw one. I am also saying that this belief is so powerful that even some people who do philosophy for a job have admitted that no argument would ever be enough to convince them. For him, there were just too many other reasons for him to continue believing. I wish I could locate the actual quote.

 

[Mercutio]

I vote Planet X.

 

[drkitten]

I am saying that the power of their belief that materialism is true overrides any logical argument that could possibly be provided.

Yes, and that's part of the problem.

You're saying that, but you're doing so in the teeth not only of the people's stated intentions, not only in the teeth of their direct words, but also with absolutely zero evidence in support of your position.

I got to witness my four-year-old neice say last weekend that she hadn't been sneaking jelly beans out of the bag. Complete with brightly coloured stains around her mouth and on her hands. She said that it must have been one of her little plastic My Little Pony toys that had done it.

But if you really work at it, Geoff, you might be able to achieve her level of credibility. After all, she was able to provide some evidence -- we could at least agree that her pony existed.