Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on January 07, 2016, 03:23:47 PM
-
Hi everyone,
For centuries philosophers and mystics have been talking about 'all life being interconnected'. Most common folk also experience some sort of a interconnectivity between themselves and other people and even all other life forms.
Scientists probably dismiss this experience as just a romanticized idea of life and merely a human psychological need to stay connected to other people. No evidence at all, they would claim.
In recent years we have seen how the ecological system is interconnected. Events happening in one part of the globe affect other parts. Events affecting one species affects many others. The Gaia hypothesis even looks at the entire earth as a living organism with all life forms as parts of it....like different cells and organs in our body.
In physics, Quantum Entanglement is about how particles once bonded stay connected on separation.... even across great distances.....influencing each other instantaneously. Some interpretations of QM also talk of conscious observation affecting reality. The Anthropic Principle (PAP) talks of consciousness being connected to the universe.
In spite of all this, scientists prefer to think of the universe as some sort of a material reality independent of life and consciousness.
The Unconscious mind has been known to take decisions even before the conscious mind is aware of it. This means that some sort of a communication is taking place between the unconscious mind and the environment even before the conscious mind is aware of it.
Mystics and spiritual people experience the positive effects of prayer, illnesses getting cured suddenly, telepathy and clairvoyance, premonitions, synchronicity....and so on.
All these phenomena if seen together, it suggests some sort of a connection between all people, all life forms and perhaps even non life objects.
The first reaction from sceptics would be one of dismissing such ideas as 'supernatural' and as related to the belief in God. This is incorrect. The common connection between all life forms need not be supernatural or anything 'out there'. It can be a very natural connection that we cannot observe through our senses but could nevertheless exist. Like the magnetic field of the earth.
The second objection would be about evidence. Well...the evidence is all around us and the above observations are the evidence.
We must remember that only in directly observable phenomena that the observation comes first and the theory follows later. In abstract matters and phenomena that we cannot observe directly...the theory or hypothesis comes first and then the observation and gathering of data follow to confirm the theory. The ideas of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes....even the predictions of certain elementary articles...are in the second category.
No doubt, at this point of time the idea of a common connection or web like field of some kind is a conjecture (a hypothesis)......but it is important to recognise it as a possibility and to incorporate it in theories of the mind, social behaviour and in ecology studies.
It is possible that beginning with this assumption instead of the normal materialistic one.... could yield better and more realistic results for analysis and making predictions. At least some people should try it IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
For centuries philosophers and mystics have been talking about 'all life being interconnected'. Most common folk also experience some sort of a interconnectivity between themselves and other people and even all other life forms.
Scientists probably dismiss this experience as just a romanticized idea of life and merely a human psychological need to stay connected to other people. No evidence at all, they would claim.
I see you've employed a straw-man to operate the Assertotron 2000TM today...
That rather depends on what you mean by 'interconnected'. Scientists are quite prepared to accept that consciousness is an integral part of at least humans, and quite likely a range of other species as well, all of which interact with the environment in a complicated fashion and can be considered 'interconnected' as part of the biosphere. What they'd dispute, in the absence of any reliable evidence, is the idea that consciousness are directly interconnected at all, or that they are manifestations of some universal 'life-force' or somesuch.
In recent years we have seen how the ecological system is interconnected. Events happening in one part of the globe affect other parts. Events affecting one species affects many others. The Gaia hypothesis even looks at the entire earth as a living organism with all life forms as parts of it....like different cells and organs in our body.
Right.
In physics, Quantum Entanglement is about how particles once bonded stay connected on separation.... even across great distances.....influencing each other instantaneously.
Broadly - I'm not sure QE requires proximity in the first place, quanta can be entangled at a range.
Some interpretations of QM also talk of conscious observation affecting reality.
At the quantum level, and it's not necessarily a conscious observation - machinery determining certain pieces of information locks quantum fluctuations into a given state.
The Anthropic Principle (PAP) talks of consciousness being connected to the universe.
It can talk of it as much as it likes, but unless it can support the idea with some sort of evidence then it's just talk.
In spite of all this, scientists prefer to think of the universe as some sort of a material reality independent of life and consciousness
No, not 'indepenent' of life and consciousness, quite the opposite. All of the life and consciousness that we're aware of is manifested, expressed and emergent from elements of the universe - what we dispute is the idea that the universe, or the broader reality, is some singular integrated consciousness or 'lifeforce'. Life and consciousness appear to be emergent properties of particular arrangements of elements of the universe.
The Unconscious mind has been known to take decisions even before the conscious mind is aware of it. This means that some sort of a communication is taking place between the unconscious mind and the environment even before the conscious mind is aware of it.
The unconscious mind has access to the same sensory stimuli as the conscious mind does - exactly what access it has to memories isn't clear yet, but the idea that the subconscious 'communicates' with the external world isn't really much of a contentious issue, unless you're suggesting some sort of extra-sensory perception or direct mental influence on surroundings.
Mystics and spiritual people experience the positive effects of prayer, illnesses getting cured suddenly, telepathy and clairvoyance, premonitions, synchronicity....and so on.
No, mystics and spiritual people believe they experience these things, and put undue credit on unevidenced claims out of confirmation bias.
All these phenomena if seen together, it suggests some sort of a connection between all people, all life forms and perhaps even non life objects.
No, they suggest that Barnum was right.
The first reaction from sceptics would be one of dismissing such ideas as 'supernatural' and as related to the belief in God.
No, the first reaction is to ask 'what evidence do you have to support the claim'. Then, if you fail to produce anything reliable, then your claim can be dismissed.
The common connection between all life forms need not be supernatural or anything 'out there'. It can be a very natural connection that we cannot observe through our senses but could nevertheless exist. Like the magnetic field of the earth.
Yes it could. All you need to do now is to support the contention.
The second objection would be about evidence. Well...the evidence is all around us and the above observations are the evidence.
No, they aren't really. People's beliefs are an extremely poor guide to reality - we just have to look at the number of conflicting ideas about gods, from 'there aren't any' through to 'there are hundreds' and any number of specific combinations in between.
We must remember that only in directly observable phenomena that the observation comes first and the theory follows later.
Right.
In abstract matters and phenomena that we cannot observe directly...the theory or hypothesis comes first and then the observation and gathering of data follow to confirm the theory. The ideas of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes....even the predictions of certain elementary articles...are in the second category.
No. Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Parallel Universes are all hypotheses derived from earlier findings - they aren't 'abstract' they are conclusions of observed phenomena.
No doubt, at this point of time the idea of a common connection or web like field of some kind is a conjecture (a hypothesis)......but it is important to recognise it as a possibility and to incorporate it in theories of the mind, social behaviour and in ecology studies.
No, you don't incorporate every conjecture into your understanding, or you have no viable way of determining anything. You can have as many hypotheses as you'd like, but they only get included in our theories when they have sufficient evidence to justify them.
It is possible that beginning with this assumption instead of the normal materialistic one.... could yield better and more realistic results for analysis and making predictions. At least some people should try it IMO.
On the practical level, materialism isn't a presumption, it's a conclusion. The conclusion is that we work on a material understanding because, as yet, nothing else has been put forward which is reliable. If and when that happens, when another viable methodology is put forward, then we'll integrate that understanding with the scientific one, but until then it's just conjecture.
O.
-
The Unconscious mind has been known to take decisions even before the conscious mind is aware of it. This means that some sort of a communication is taking place between the unconscious mind and the environment even before the conscious mind is aware of it.
Yes, via our senses of sight, sound touch etc
Mystics and spiritual people experience the positive effects of prayer, illnesses getting cured suddenly, telepathy and clairvoyance, premonitions, synchronicity....and so on.
All these phenomena if seen together, it suggests some sort of a connection between all people, all life forms and perhaps even non life objects.
Not to me, especially since there is no evidence to suggest any of those are real things.
The first reaction from sceptics would be one of dismissing such ideas as 'supernatural' and as related to the belief in God.
No, nothing to do with God - but to do with beliefs certainly.
This is incorrect. The common connection between all life forms need not be supernatural or anything 'out there'. It can be a very natural connection that we cannot observe through our senses but could nevertheless exist. Like the magnetic field of the earth.
It could be - but there is no evidnce to date for such a thing so in the absence of that it is a belief.
The second objection would be about evidence. Well...the evidence is all around us and the above observations are the evidence.
Nope.
We must remember that only in directly observable phenomena that the observation comes first and the theory follows later. In abstract matters and phenomena that we cannot observe directly...the theory or hypothesis comes first and then the observation and gathering of data follow to confirm the theory. The ideas of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes....even the predictions of certain elementary articles...are in the second category.
No doubt, at this point of time the idea of a common connection or web like field of some kind is a conjecture (a hypothesis)......but it is important to recognise it as a possibility and to incorporate it in theories of the mind, social behaviour and in ecology studies.
It is possible that beginning with this assumption instead of the normal materialistic one.... could yield better and more realistic results for analysis and making predictions. At least some people should try it IMO.
Sure, keep an open mind about the possibilities - but look for evidence that can be supported, tested and falsified before getting too carried away.
-
Safe to say the first two responses to your OP have buried you again Sriram, been into "Ted" have we?
ippy
-
The Unconscious mind has been known to take decisions even before the conscious mind is aware of it. This means that some sort of a communication is taking place between the unconscious mind and the environment even before the conscious mind is aware of it.
Nothing spooky, or new, about that. Subconscious perception precedes conscious perception, how could it possibly be otherwise ? Consciousness is very expensive, only need-to-know stuff gets into our conscious awareness. New research demonstrates that humans can do simple arithmetic and parse grammatical structures in subconscious mind, without ever realising they were doing it, or without ever making a knowing effort to calculate.
-
Nothing spooky, or new, about that. Subconscious perception precedes conscious perception, how could it possibly be otherwise ? Consciousness is very expensive, only need-to-know stuff gets into our conscious awareness. New research demonstrates that humans can do simple arithmetic and parse grammatical structures in subconscious mind, without ever realising they were doing it, or without ever making a knowing effort to calculate.
:D I never said that anything was spooky. You keep saying that. Spooky...woo...out there....supernatural... are all words many of you use to relegate anything you don't understand to a 'dismissed' status.
I wonder by the same definition, why Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel universes, Strings and other such cannot be categorized as 'woo' or 'spooky'?! None of them can be sensed in any way. They are just conjecture and perhaps mathematical possibilities.
-
Give up, Sriram! You are chasing rainbows.
-
Falsifiability.
-
On the practical level, materialism isn't a presumption, it's a conclusion. The conclusion is that we work on a material understanding because, as yet, nothing else has been put forward which is reliable. If and when that happens, when another viable methodology is put forward, then we'll integrate that understanding with the scientific one, but until then it's just conjecture.
O.
a quiet confusion between methodological materialism and it's inconclusive cousin philosophical materialism.
Use of just the word materialism should be cause for suspicion here since it is by no means certain that philosophical materialism is conclusive and certainly methodological materialism has nothing to say on that matter.
Another point which should come with a health warning is the incompetence of other ways we process our universe. We can note from your posts that you propose all these ''non methodologies'' are incompetent....except, note, the one that leads to the conclusion of philosophical materialism. That is just special pleading I'm afraid.
Secondly, in terms of methodological materialism Chomsky has noted increased ineffectiveness in science the further we go from pure science.
What is more effective is what they call the ''unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics''. There is a strong argument made that if there is a correspondence of mathematics to religious language then there is no real difference between string talk ,multiverse talk and religious talk.
Source. Are We Alone, Penguin books, Paul Davies.
-
a quiet confusion between methodological materialism and it's inconclusive cousin philosophical materialism.
One is the practical application of the other - you can apply it without accepting the philosophical basis as an entirety, but you can also deduce from the practical that the philosophical is a reasonable basis until further evidence presents itself.
Use of just the word materialism should be cause for suspicion here since it is by no means certain that philosophical materialism is conclusive and certainly methodological materialism has nothing to say on that matter.
No, but logical deduction from one system that consistently works set against a variety of non-methodologies that don't leads to its own conclusion. It's definitively true, but it's provisionally valid.
Another point which should come with a health warning is the incompetence of other ways we process our universe. We can note from your posts that you propose all these ''non methodologies'' are incompetent....except, note, the one that leads to the conclusion of philosophical materialism. That is just special pleading I'm afraid.
It's self-referential, yes, but in a purely subjective understanding of reality what other option do we have? It's a self-referential philosophy that produces consistent results and accurate predictions, against the other non-methodologies which don't.
Secondly, in terms of methodological materialism Chomsky has noted increased ineffectiveness in science the further we go from pure science.
Who would have thought that the more complex and less immediately measurable a situation was, the less useful a system of making predictions of simple systems from measurable results might be...
What is more effective is what they call the ''unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics''. There is a strong argument made that if there is a correspondence of mathematics to religious language then there is no real difference between string talk ,multiverse talk and religious talk.
That's a) a pretty large 'if' in the middle of that, and b) just as much a conjecture as the religious language was in the first place. It still lacks any capacity to verify it - you can demonstrate that the mathematics works, but how can you show that the unverifiable religious claims in any way cleave to it?
O.
-
One is the practical application of the other - you can apply it without accepting the philosophical basis as an entirety, but you can also deduce from the practical that the philosophical is a reasonable basis until further evidence presents itself.
No, but logical deduction from one system that consistently works set against a variety of non-methodologies that don't leads to its own conclusion. It's definitively true, but it's provisionally valid.
It's self-referential, yes, but in a purely subjective understanding of reality what other option do we have? It's a self-referential philosophy that produces consistent results and accurate predictions, against the other non-methodologies which don't.
No it is not a self referential philosophy since the philosophy does not yield any results or predicts anything except everything that really exists is material. That hasn't been demonstrated let alone with accuracy and is certainly not confirmed by methodological materialism. In other words I am correct in saying you are specially pleading philosophical materialism.
-
I can feel the interconnective stuff while I sit in total safety ( and in some ways sat apart from nature) the minute I become perspective lunch for a shark or tiger it tends to go to pot!
Just being honest here ;)
-
No it is not a self referential philosophy since the philosophy does not yield any results or predicts anything except everything that really exists is material.
If you apply the philosophy you get science, which has been massively successful at accurately depicting the reality we appear to co-exist within. That demonstrates a reasonable basis for presuming that philosophical materialism has some validity. The absence of any consistent demonstration of anything similar from anywhere else leaves philosophical materialism as the only valid game in town until someone comes up with something else that actually works.
That hasn't been demonstrated let alone with accuracy and is certainly not confirmed by methodological materialism. In other words I am correct in saying you are specially pleading philosophical materialism.
No, you're still trying to reduce everything to 'nobody has any basis for anything' because your own personal pet preference is reduced to that.
Science - the practical application of philosophical materialism - works. So far, nothing else does.
O.
-
If you apply the philosophy you get science, which has been massively successful at accurately depicting the reality we appear to co-exist within. That demonstrates a reasonable basis for presuming that philosophical materialism has some validity. The absence of any consistent demonstration of anything similar from anywhere else leaves philosophical materialism as the only valid game in town until someone comes up with something else that actually works.
No, you're still trying to reduce everything to 'nobody has any basis for anything' because your own personal pet preference is reduced to that.
Science - the practical application of philosophical materialism - works. So far, nothing else does.
O.
It does for me ;)
-
It does for me ;)
Then you either can't or haven't thought deeply enough!
-
Then you either can't or haven't thought deeply enough!
I have, I just don't see that reducing everything down until it loses its meaning, does anything for me.
I want my life to be enjoyable, not a series of unavoidable chemical reactions.
It's like the " free will doesn't exist" argument.
It takes away something from me.
Something that is just "me"
By the time scientists have taken away my free will, told me my consciousness is an illusion and love doesn't exist, what's left?
A few meaty joints on a rack of bones?
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/you-dont-really-exist-do-you.html
It's not very inspiring and makes me ask what am I then?, to which science seems to reply a bag of bones with meat attached reacting in a preconceived way.
I don't even get the luxury of being "me"
No wonder it hasn't got many followers.
It isn't the way I see life and people, reduced to their components.
Seriously I think religion does a lot better sometimes.
Science can go OTT with the reductionist stuff, sometimes.
It isn't that I think I'm more that the other animals on the planet, they get their " me" removed too ...... Worse than humans do.......
-
It does for me ;)
Whether it works or not as an accurate depiction of reality isn't a subjective understanding. You can be comfortable with something else, that's fine.
That something might be right, even though (because, say, of our limited current understanding) it's not something that's useful to us as a model.
It doesn't currently work as an accurate depiction of reality, though, because of that objective inconsistency.
O.
-
I have, I just don't see that reducing everything down until it loses its meaning, does anything for me.
I don't see a) why reducing it down somehow makes anything 'lose meaning' or why you presume there's any meaning there in the first place.
I want my life to be enjoyable, not a series of unavoidable chemical reactions.
I don't see why it can't be both. My life is an unavoidable sequence of events, my nature is the subjective understanding of a pattern of bioneural activities, but whilst that's happening I'm enjoying the fact that it is.
It's like the " free will doesn't exist" argument.
I don't see why - whether we enjoy living isn't dependent upon the nature of life, it's about a subjective appreciation of the activity.
It takes away something from me.
Given that it's either the case or it isn't, it doesn't actually take anything away: if it's right, you never had what you thought you had in the first place.
Something that is just "me"
Which comes back to 'what are you', and whilst you have an answer that makes you happy, there's no mechanism to verify that it's even part of the truth, let alone all of it. The scientific model, by contrast, can explain everything, doesn't have any gaps, and is demonstrable for everyone as at least part of the explanation.
O.
-
Whether it works or not as an accurate depiction of reality isn't a subjective understanding. You can be comfortable with something else, that's fine.
That something might be right, even though (because, say, of our limited current understanding) it's not something that's useful to us as a model.
It doesn't currently work as an accurate depiction of reality, though, because of that objective inconsistency.
O.
There is science and then there are other things that make life enjoyable that cannot be easily measured.
Like Art
Drama
Beauty
Music
Science only tells us their physical composition.
There are some " perceptions" it can't measure.
You can't measure a beautiful sunset or a rainbow, science just explains the physical side of it.
Science can explore and play notes in music etc but it takes a human mind to create a beautiful piece of music.
Science cannot grasp and measure, imagination.
You can't put that under a microscope.
Not yet anyway :o
-
If you apply the philosophy you get science, which has been massively successful at accurately depicting the reality we appear to co-exist within. That demonstrates a reasonable basis for presuming that philosophical materialism has some validity. The absence of any consistent demonstration of anything similar from anywhere else leaves philosophical materialism as the only valid game in town until someone comes up with something else that actually works.
No, you're still trying to reduce everything to 'nobody has any basis for anything' because your own personal pet preference is reduced to that.
Science - the practical application of philosophical materialism - works. So far, nothing else does.
O.
Your post is spin Rider.
There is no need for any application of philosophical materialism in order for science/methodolical materialism to operate.
In fact science in the development of the human race does not derive from an environment of philosophical materialism
But from an intellectual belief in God being the lawgiver of a created universe.
Philosophical materialism derives from faith in and an ontological punt from the methodology and of course by the confusion either deliberate or through ignorance
Of the methodology and philosophy.
What you are suggesting........your bit of woo if you will.........is that everyone has an inner philosophical materialist from whom any scientific work progresses. Any inner PM has nothing to contribute to the methodology which is in fact a tool we can and do all use.
-
I have, I just don't see that reducing everything down until it loses its meaning, does anything for me.
I want my life to be enjoyable, not a series of unavoidable chemical reactions.
It's like the " free will doesn't exist" argument.
It takes away something from me.
Something that is just "me"
By the time scientists have taken away my free will, told me my consciousness is an illusion and love doesn't exist, what's left?
A few meaty joints on a rack of bones?
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/you-dont-really-exist-do-you.html
It's not very inspiring and makes me ask what am I then?, to which science seems to reply a bag of bones with meat attached reacting in a preconceived way.
I don't even get the luxury of being "me"
No wonder it hasn't got many followers.
It isn't the way I see life and people, reduced to their components.
Seriously I think religion does a lot better sometimes.
Science can go OTT with the reductionist stuff, sometimes.
It isn't that I think I'm more that the other animals on the planet, they get their " me" removed too ...... Worse than humans do.......
What on earth was all that about?
Knowing what causes emotions in no way detracts from experiencing them. I am every bit as capable of feeling love, admiration joy and sadness as anybody else.
-
What on earth was all that about?
Knowing what causes emotions in no way detracts from experiencing them. I am every bit as capable of feeling love, admiration joy and sadness as anybody else.
Yeah Len and while you are doing all of that you aren't doing reductionist methodological materialism.
-
500 points!
-
500 points!
Shaker there are plenty of online games.
There is a suitable on for you. I think it's called Angry Turds or birds or something.
-
Yeah Len and while you are doing all of that you aren't doing reductionist methodological materialism.
Well thank you for letting me know. Does that mean anything?
-
Shaker there are plenty of online games.
There is a suitable on for you. I think it's called Angry Turds or birds or something.
I've tried loads of them and none of them are anywhere near as much fun as collecting points every time you crowbar another one of your pet obsessions into something utterly irrelevant.
-
Hi everyone,
I want to clarify that what I am referring to in this thread is NOT about the inner consciousness or Self or the Universal Consciousness or such 'spiritual' matters. That is at a very deep level.
I am here referring to something much more mundane and surficial. I am not talking about inner realization but of a natural and perhaps biological/magnetic connection between all living beings including animals, plants and other stuff. I am referring to something that can actually be felt around us if we train ourselves sufficiently.
Its mental and perhaps quasi physical in some way. It influences our minds and our bodies, affects out health and well being, coordinates between different objects, enables direct communication and so on.
It is something that is very much a part of this natural world.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well thank you for letting me know. Does that mean anything?
You know it does Len ;)
-
I've tried loads of them and none of them are anywhere near as much fun as collecting points every time you crowbar
You ought to get out more.
The point I am making is that when Len says he is loving or caring or feeling sympathy he is not using the methodology you are suggesting is the be all and end all.
-
You ought to get out more.
You first - you seem to need it more.
The point I am making is that when Len says he is loving or caring or feeling sympathy he is not using the methodology you are suggesting is the be all and end all.
Why is he not?
-
You first - you seem to need it more.
Why is he not?
Because there are limits to what the methodology can be applied to without the reductionism kicking in.
-
Whether it works or not as an accurate depiction of reality isn't a subjective understanding. You can be comfortable with something else, that's fine.
That something might be right, even though (because, say, of our limited current understanding) it's not something that's useful to us as a model.
It doesn't currently work as an accurate depiction of reality, though, because of that objective inconsistency.
O.
Unfortunately coming up with an accurate description of reality isn't very high in most people's priorities.
-
Hi everyone,
I want to clarify that what I am referring to in this thread is NOT about the inner consciousness or Self or the Universal Consciousness or such 'spiritual' matters. That is at a very deep level.
I am here referring to something much more mundane and surficial. I am not talking about inner realization but of a natural and perhaps biological/magnetic connection between all living beings including animals, plants and other stuff. I am referring to something that can actually be felt around us if we train ourselves sufficiently.
Its mental and perhaps quasi physical in some way. It influences our minds and our bodies, affects out health and well being, coordinates between different objects, enables direct communication and so on.
It is something that is very much a part of this natural world.
Cheers.
Sriram
So ... do you, speaking personally for yourself, feel it around yourself or others?
-
All emotions are the result of biochemical actions, and exist only in the brain. They are totally relative, and our reaction to them depends entirely on our nature/nurture.
-
So ... do you, speaking personally for yourself, feel it around yourself or others?
Oh yes.....I can.....anytime I want to.
-
There is science and then there are other things that make life enjoyable that cannot be easily measured.
Like Art
Drama
Beauty
Music
If the point is to enjoy them, which measuring doesn't help, why measure them?
Science only tells us their physical composition. There are some " perceptions" it can't measure.
I'd qualify that with a possible 'yet', but yes.
You can't measure a beautiful sunset or a rainbow, science just explains the physical side of it.
Perhaps for now - would understanding why it's beautiful make it any less so?
Science can explore and play notes in music etc but it takes a human mind to create a beautiful piece of music. Science cannot grasp and measure, imagination. You can't put that under a microscope.
Again, I'd say 'yet'. Appreciation of beauty is a neurological process, we have only a limited understanding of neurology at the moment, who is to say whether or not we will unravel these complexities in the future.
Not yet anyway :o
Ah, the perils of answering in sequence - you beat me to it :)
O.
-
Your post is spin Rider.
You assert, once more.
There is no need for any application of philosophical materialism in order for science/methodolical materialism to operate.
Philosophical materialism is implicit in the application of scientific reasoning, it's the foundation of the presumption that duplicate cause inevitably and consistently leads to duplicated effect.
In fact science in the development of the human race does not derive from an environment of philosophical materialism. But from an intellectual belief in God being the lawgiver of a created universe.
Philosophical materialism derives from faith in and an ontological punt from the methodology and of course by the confusion either deliberate or through ignorance of the methodology and philosophy.
Actually, it can either be presumed and then provisionally confirmed by science, or it can be deduced from scientific findings, or a combination of both.
What you are suggesting........your bit of woo if you will.........is that everyone has an inner philosophical materialist from whom any scientific work progresses. Any inner PM has nothing to contribute to the methodology which is in fact a tool we can and do all use.
No, what I'm explaining is that the conduct of (good) science presumes philosophical materialism - it presumes a physical universe with consistent, repetitious patterns of activity and no supernatural or spontaneous acts. You can, from the consistency of science and the absence of anything else reliable deduce a broader philosophical materialism or you can proceed to science from a presumption of philosophical materialism: it's not required that you do either in your life as a whole in order to conduct science, though the science itself requires the suspension of other systems.
O.
-
You assert, once more.
Philosophical materialism is implicit in the application of scientific reasoning, it's the foundation of the presumption that duplicate cause inevitably and consistently leads to duplicated effect.
Actually, it can either be presumed and then provisionally confirmed by science, or it can be deduced from scientific findings, or a combination of both.
No, what I'm explaining is that the conduct of (good) science presumes philosophical materialism - it presumes a physical universe with consistent, repetitious patterns of activity and no supernatural or spontaneous acts. You can, from the consistency of science and the absence of anything else reliable deduce a broader philosophical materialism or you can proceed to science from a presumption of philosophical materialism: it's not required that you do either in your life as a whole in order to conduct science, though the science itself requires the suspension of other systems.
O.
The above is a distorted definition of science....have you not heard of Popper. Science presumes the physical but has nothing to say on anything else. Science is not an ontological punt. Philosophical materialism is.
Philosophical materialism is not implicit in science at all.
-
The above is a distorted definition of science....have you not heard of Popper.
It's not a definition of science at all, it's a description of how science fits into a philosophical framework.
Science presumes the physical but has nothing to say on anything else.
Philosophical materialism is the presumption that the physical is all there is - how that makes science something other than the practical application of it makes even less sense than most of what you post.
Science is not an ontological punt.
Nobody except you suggested that it was.
Philosophical materialism is.
Perhaps, but at least it's a validated one - more than can be said for any of the others.
Philosophical materialism is not implicit in science at all.
Yet your own definition shows that it is.
O.
-
It's not a definition of science at all, it's a description of how science fits into a philosophical framework.
Philosophical materialism is the presumption that the physical is all there is - how that makes science something other than the practical application of it makes even less sense than most of what you post.
Now outrider you know that the above is not true. Science is just one of many intellectual discipline.
The presumptions of PM are in no ways necessary for science. Science is a thing not a person or even collection of people and cannot presume.
You quoted some preconditions of science. A reasonable universe rather than a completely chaotic one and a universe whose susceptibility to science works at all material levels.
This is perfectly consistent with the Christian view of God for example and indeed the first western scientists were theists.
-
Now outrider you know that the above is not true. Science is just one of many intellectual discipline.
Did anyone suggest anything different?
The presumptions of PM are in no ways necessary for science.
Not necessary, but consistent.
Science is a thing not a person or even collection of people and cannot presume.
Pedantry at this point? You can selectively reinterpret 'Philosophical Materialism' at will, but can't read 'presumptions of science' as 'presumptions of the individuals practicing science whilst practising science'?
You quoted some preconditions of science. A reasonable universe rather than a completely chaotic one and a universe whose susceptibility to science works at all material levels.
Which are also the presumptions of philosophical materialism! Wonder of wonders, it's like they're consistent concepts!
This is perfectly consistent with the Christian view of God for example and indeed the first western scientists were theists.
It's entirely consistent with a deist view of God, but not with the majority of Christians who believe in an interventionist deity. Science, of course, doesn't inherently discount the possibility of gods, it just presumes their absence whilst it conducts its work.
Nobody claimed science disproved gods, just that it demonstrates the continued viability of a system that doesn't need them. Where's any sort of demonstration of the viability of the claim that they do?
O.