Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 2
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternativesPage 1 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
You're an idiot.
The only way we can know if the physical reality we see around us is real is through materialistic processes. We cannot know if anything is real WITHOUT materialistic reasoning. Otherwise if we can't test its validity then it is subjective and subjective understanding is not science.


Leave the science to the scientists.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/18/2010 7:32:54 PM
Everything which IS provable exists, and is a demonstrable *part* of this definition of Materialism.

Therefore, your added goofball definition of "is all of reality, and is the ultimate reality" is the only part of this "Materialism" that is not clearly true, real, and provable.

You're just adding an unprovable, and indeed, irrelevant, element to "reality," where reality is the observable, provable "bits" of the universe.

So, by making an arbitrary unprovable alteration to the definition of reality, you make YOUR definition of reality unprovable.

*yawn* Talk about violating parsimony, Ockham, and all the rest.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 5
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/18/2010 8:57:11 PM


Materialism is the belief that this physical universe (or a "multiverse" consisting of a set of physically-related "universes", of which our own universe is one) is all of reality, and is the ultimate reality.


Are ideas made out of material?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 12
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/19/2010 4:04:51 PM
@@Are ideas made out of material?

@Of course not.

So is it your proposition that materialists don't believe in ideas? If not, then how do
you reconcile your definition of materialist with materialists beliving in the existence
of something non-material?
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 15
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/19/2010 5:40:02 PM
Since when isn't science materialistically proven? Case in point: string theory. Even though there are mathematical proofs (non-material proof), it is still highly debated as being a philosophy or a science. The reason behind the debate is the argument that we have no means of detecting these strings (and or membranes) of energy that string theory describes, that given their very nature are only detectable by indirect evidence. If that's not materialism I don't think I have a clear picture of what you mean.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 27
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/20/2010 8:04:35 PM
Dalane - VERY well said. I applaud you!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 29
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/21/2010 12:04:48 PM

Tnen I ran across the Upanishads, and that was the end of trying to make Materialism work.


In other words, this is about your own spirituality. Your own personal mysticism as you interpret what is basically documents of faith.

You seem to grasp onto words and try to bend your personal "definitions" to fit into your personal expectations and standards.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 34
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/21/2010 1:30:59 PM

No idea what you're referring to or trying to say.

Whether or not you comprehend what he is saying, ...others do. Expect to be called on this, often.

My definiton of Materialism was an (apparently pretty accurate) effort to describe the metaphysics apparently held by some of the aggressive "more-scientific-than-thou" science enthusiasts at this forum.

In an effort to disparage those who hold views you don't agree with, you created a straw man to attack on your terms (and only your terms), you got called on it once so you created another thread and built another straw man using different words but still employing the same intellectual dishonesty, ...and you continue to be called on it.

The dismissive response to this is also, always the same:

"No idea what you're referring to or trying to say" . This is the dialectic equivalent to covering one's ears, closing one's eyes and singing "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU....!"
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 35
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/21/2010 2:17:27 PM

Don't be an ass.


Interesting response, especially in light of what you stated about your policy on replies stated earlier in this thread. In case you've forgotten, I'll remind you...


New policy about replies:

I won't reply to anyone who engages in namecalling, ad hominem criticism, displays of anger, uncalled for rudeness; or to anyone who, in my judgement, descends significantly below a neutral tone.


So the rules you impose on the discussion don't apply to you, apparently. Interesting.


I don't know what you mean by "mystsicism", and no, don't bother to look it up for me. :-)


Well, I will anyway...here's an interesting definition courtesy of dictionary.com:


mys·ti·cism (mĭs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) n.
Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.

The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

Vague, groundless speculation.


Now...


It was clear from that I said that the Upanishads described an alternative to Materialism.


...so, let's look up the Upanishads courtesy of Hindunet.org:


Upanishad means the inner or mystic teaching. The term Upanishad is derived from upa (near), ni (down) and s(h)ad (to sit), i.e., sitting down near. Groups of pupils sit near the teacher to learn from him the secret doctrine. In the quietude of the forest hermitages the Upanishad thinkers pondered on the problems of deepest concerns and communicated their knowledge to fit pupils near them. Samkara derives the word Upanishad as a substitute from the root sad, 'to loosen.,' 'to reach' or 'to destroy' with Upa and ni as prefixes and kvip as termination. If this determination is accepted, upanishad means brahma-knowledge by which ignorance is loosened or destroyed. The treatises that deal with brahma-knowledge are called the Upanishads and so pass for the Vedanta. The different derivations together make out that the Upanishads give us both spiritual vision and philosophical argument. There is a core of certainty which is essentially incommunicable except by a way of life. It is by a strictly personal effort that one can reach the truth.


So you are using mystical teachings and comparing them to a non-denominational (indeed, arguably antithetical to religion) philosophical discipline identified as "materialism." Ever tried to make an apple pie with oranges?


My definiton of Materialism was an (apparently pretty accurate) effort to describe the metaphysics apparently held by some of the aggressive "more-scientific-than-thou" science enthusiasts at this forum.


You must not be bothered too much by crows for all the straw men you throw up.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 37
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/22/2010 10:50:54 AM

A lot of science-enthusiasts seem to think that science and Materialism are one, and that Materialism is implied, proved, or supported by science.

On the contrary, experimental tests have already demonstrated that any conventional notion of materialism cannot be compatible with quantum mechanics. On the other hand, your definition of materialism doesn't fit any conventional definition. What you do say is rather vague and perhaps the words you are (or should be) looking for are ontology and epistemology.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 40
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/22/2010 3:26:37 PM

As I said, if you don't like these arguments, then you can just take their conclusion as a theory--a theory that makes more sense than Materialism for the reasons that I've stated.

(1) It's not a theory, since you make no testable predictions. To be called a theory, (at least in the scientific sense, very specific conditions must be met (cf Karl Popper).

(2) Your imprecise, lengthy, metaphysical commentary is precisely why philosophy has become (mostly) irrelevant to modern science. (However, there are some in the philosophy world who are attempting to actually understand modern science in order to once again become relevant.)
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 44
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/22/2010 4:36:17 PM

To the Materialist, that ultimate reality is the physical universe and its laws.

No, to a physicist, the ultimate reality is the physical universe and its laws. Materialism is a specific belief about what that reality is. Your own views fit the usual definition of materialism more than not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

If you want to invent your own philosophy, call it something that doesn't already have a concrete meaning (although, I think mysticism is probably pretty accurate.)
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 45
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/22/2010 4:42:40 PM

If you want to invent your own philosophy, call it something that doesn't already have a concrete meaning

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 46
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/22/2010 5:49:17 PM

Politeness: I always start out polite. I'm always polite when politeness is warranted. If you're acting like a (what I said), then eventually I might mention that fact.


Actually, you responded pretty much as I expected you to. Sadly.


Please note that I didn't ask you to look up for me a dictionary definition of mysticism. It's a word that you use. It isn't a word that I use. Now, thanks to your help, I know what your dictionary says it means--for whatever that's worth.


It was appropriate to point out the difference of what you were saying with what you were really doing. You see, there is a marked difference. I know you didn't want anyone to define mysticism but that's only because it belies the weakness of your own argument.

I find it interesting, however, that you perceive a countering argument as an attack. And certainly telling of your argument approach so far. As for a dictionary's interpretation of a word over yours, I'll go with the dictionary.


Thanks for quoting for us what a dictionary and some author say about the Upanishads.


Yes, from Hindunet.org. Do you identify yourself as Hindu? Because I would be more inclined to accept the authority of a Hindu person for their own personal religious beliefs than someone who cherry picks what they want to believe a religious text says because it suits their own personal viewpoint.

You use the word "metaphysics" when it's quite clear to me and several others that the word you're really searching for is "mysticism."

From what I've seen so far, all you've done is set up your definition of the philosophy of materialism, equated it to the approach of science and then argued that, because "materialism" is not scientifically "provable" - without actually giving any clear indication of why it isn't, I might add - with the implication being that your interpretation is the only right one and, since you've so handily (in your mind) undermined "science" then your interpretation should be held as equal to any other "scientific" interpretation of reality.

But I know. I'm just being mean. Oh well.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 47
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/23/2010 6:22:22 AM

Stop bogging it down in its preliminary stages.

Why? The entire point of a public discussion is to elucidate the flaws in reasoning that leads people to draw erroneous conclusions from unchallenged assumptions. While no one will convince the OP he is engaging in quite a few logical fallacies, by pointing them out, the OP's flawed reasoning is made more obvious. If one is to determine whether a particular conclusion follows from the argument given, one must first pin down the assumptions and insist that the logical reasoning that follows can lead to only the conclusion drawn.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 48
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/23/2010 3:43:40 PM

What harm can this possibly lead to that in order for someone else's philosophy to make sense to themselves they have to convince themself Physics is Faith based?

No harm, it's just that that journey can and should be accomplished solo. Endeavor to bring every other curious mind along on that journey/process, and there is just a collective sense of disappointment that very, very little of any real relevance or profundity has been expressed.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 55
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/23/2010 6:45:56 PM

It was because it's so common for pseudoscientists to proclaim that they're more scientific, skeptical, and questioning than those who suggest anything that amounts to a departure from Materialism.

This remains, by far, the least supported of your assertions-- and that is signifigant because it is the foundation of your thread's relevance. Hence, it is the source of much of the collective sense of disappointment-- I say "collective" based upon the replies you have gotten here.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/23/2010 7:55:48 PM

But you're also being typically loud and ignorant. The most ignorant people tend to be the loudest.


The irony of this statement is staggering. You do realize, don't you, that you are responsible for more than 2/3 of the total number of words posted in this thread? I may die of laughter.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 57
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/23/2010 10:24:03 PM

But you're also being typically loud and ignorant. The most ignorant people tend to be the loudest.


Pot, meet kettle. I'll give you one thing App, you're predictable. But I think rhino covered this pretty effectively. Moving on.


Stargazer, I really try to avoid namecalling, but what can I say to an id**t who says something like that?


Oh, I'm sure I could come up with lots of names for you that would likely get me kicked off. However, for someone who outlines his "rules" for how he thinks his "discussion" should go and then breaks those rules? Well, the top name would be hypocrite.

So let's get on with your "discussion" shall we?


Science studies and describes the physical world. It says nothing about ultimate reality.


And what would that "ultimate reality" be? From previous forums, I've seen you describe "physical reality" as a "dream state" from which we derive "physical experience." Metaphysical? No, that would be mystical. Or do you have something that provides clear and convincing proof for those of us "science worshippers?"

Oh, and speaking of which...


I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith


That is truly hilarious! I've participated in enough of these forums to realize that when someone has to resort to this, their arguments are pretty much done. It usually starts about the time we "worshippers of science" start to undermine the fantasy-based "reality" of either the OP or someone responding to the OP with the usual bit of mystical nonsense. "Well, you can't 'prove' anything absolutely so you're just going on faith like everyone else. Your faith is in your 'science.'"

It's funny, but it's also sad.


And no, if, by my "interpretation" you're referring to Indian Metaphysics, the Materialism metaphysics is certainly not equal to Indian Metaphysics, by such standards of arbitrariness, accord with evidence, etc. Materialism's obvious arbitrariness, even by itself, would be enough to disqualify Materialism from consideration.


The term for this is pretzel logic. Come to think of it, most of your threads do little but amount to pretzel logic. Twisting and turning itself into all manner of shape but ultimately meaning nothing.


No metaphysics is scientifically provable.


Well, isn't that clever of you. That's because, by definitions that you, yourself have acknowledged, it doesn't have to. "Metaphysics" are only philosophies of physical reality. Science is the nuts and bolts. Your mysticism, while relying on "physical reality" for its base metaphors, has absolutely nothing to do with "reality" by which most of us define the world.

I could go on, but frankly there's no point. There's another word I'd like for you to consider. Vanity. Pretty much, that's all your "contributions" to these forums amount to is self-aggrandizing vanity. You know, if you really wanted to impress someone, look either to your left or right. I'm sure you've got a mirror(s) there somewhere.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 59
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:16:49 AM
I being everything which knows and does not know includes you as being me. Since we are one and separate that knows and does know are everything and nothing. Ultimate reality knows and does know, and exists and does not exist, is us and not us, is I and not I, and "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality" and simulatenously not "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality."


And so, App is basically arguing with himself.

Edit:

Perhaps he can get this guru to give him a hand.

http://tinyurl.com/yen6prr
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 63
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:03:10 PM

Anyone who holds that the scientific method, empirical measurement, or sensory perception is the only path to knowledge have to deny that humans (and themselves in particular) are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong in any meaningful sense.


But that is completely missing the point. The application of the scientific method has nothing to do with arbitrary concepts as "right and wrong." Those are the "social contract" individuals have with society in general as evidenced by the fact that different societies have different definition of "right and wrong." Would any of us have wanted to live in Spartan society, for instance?

The scientific method only seeks to build models that adequately explain the world we see in an objectively observable and robust way. Why things work the way they work. It has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality, God or gods.

Materialism is a philosophy. As I tried to explain to Appy (should have written more slowly, I guess), science is the nuts and bolts of getting the data.


He likes to say that atheists can be moral without god or gods or spiritualism or mysticism. Oh ya? Prove it!


Um....since the opposite assertion is that you need god, gods, spiritualism or mysticism to be "moral," give examples where this has been the case. Now expect the falsification (i.e. the Crusades) to come raining down.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 64
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:32:52 PM

Rhino said that I post more than others. Could that be because I'm replying to maybe a dozen or more people? Predictably, if I reply to each, I'll be posting more than they post per person. Additionally, I've posted some messages that aren't replies, but which instead are discussions of this thread's topic, under the heading of "Comparison of Metaphysicses".


Look up! There goes the point you missed.


No fraudulent quotes. You said that I was trying or claiming to disprove science. We both know that I said no such thing.


Oh, do please cite a concrete example. What I've said is that you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Materialism is a philosophy. Science is an application. Mysticism is about supernatural explanations for things.



And what would that "ultimate reality" be?


I refer you to parts 2 to 5 of my "Comparison of Metaphysicses" posts in this thread.
Repeating everything for you becomes a waste of time.


I actually did read it. It had a certain but not surprising lack of clarity.


The Ace Reporter has taken someone else's subject line, and reported as a quote from me. No, I never said that. It was someone else's subject-line.


Okay, you got me on that one. Mea culpa. I notice you can't help but get a petty, childish dig in too. Ah, App. Your true self comes shining through.


I'm referring to the impressive amount of faith and devotion shown by people like you, who make a "cargo-cult" religion of science. The Materialism metaphysics is part of your religion, but your emotional investment in your beliefs, and your strong and angrily-expressed devotion to them, qualifies you as fully religious.


Ah yes, the tired old "science is religion" refrain. Actually, with statements like this and the previous, it amazes me how quickly you turn your post from being about ideas to being about personalities. Set up a characterization of the person so you can then attack that perception as if you're attacking what you believe to be the person's position. Two words: "Straw" and "Man."


No, metaphysics isn't about the description or workings of the physical world. That's physical science's job.


Oh, so you believe in science? You recognize that "metaphysics" is a philosophical approach and science is the more practical "rubber meets the road" approach? Trouble is, you're arguing strawberries with your mysticism approach.

I just wish you had the courage of your convictions to acknowledge what's so painfully obvious to the rest of us.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 65
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/24/2010 8:42:16 PM
Uhm...may I say something?

Op, you have expounded much upon your view of materialism, but I have yet to see your display of knowledge on the Upanishads...could you please clarify?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 66
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:14:36 AM
No worries, Mike. I should have also added "convenient."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 67
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 12:11:52 PM

so I will type slowly for your benefit.


Oh joy. Another one. *yawn*


But wow, right and wrong are merely arbitrary? That sort of attitude could explain why so many people have trust issues these days. I wouldn't want someone getting all arbitrary on my feelings.


Well now, talk about a subjective statement.


And dollars to donuts that most if not all Spartans would jump at the chance to come live in the 21st century.


Oh really? And how do you draw this conclusion? Because you like living in the 21st Century and you wouldn't want to live like a Spartan?


the scientific method has nothing to do with morality as its tools are completely inapplicable to the task, but a non-physical component of the universe is necessary for morality to be anything but arbitrary, or at best an argument ad baculum writ large.


So are you speaking strictly from a hypothetical standpoint or are you arguing that, yes, in fact the 10 commandments really did come down from Mt. Sinai and were inscribed by the finger of God?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives