Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 09:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief means you accept something as true. The term has no
bearing on justification. You mention evidence again. And I have to ask again what is evidence?

Belief is the acceptance of a truth claim without no evidence to support it so it has everything to do with faith. Faith positions especially religious faith positions have no evidence
to support them at all. And specifically ones that contradict the laws of physics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any truth claim with no supporting evidence [ extraordinary or otherwise ] can be dismissed or treated with scepticism until evidence can be found to support it. The problem with accepting truth claims with no evidence to
support them is that the claims could be wrong. And this is why evidence is so important. It has to be physical and capable of examination by multiple observers [ scientists with
expertise in a particular field ] to eliminate or minimise bias. If it is to support a testable hypothesis then the hypothesis in question has to be repeatable and potentially falsiable

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 11:23 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 04:55 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No. Science is the best way to study observable physical reality. Reality and existence as a whole can best be studied by the a priori method of metaphysics.
Let me try to unravel this by rephrasing and make visible what your statment has hidden, by accident or ignorance, i dont know.

Metaphysics: The a priori method takes logical/rational arguments to prove if something is true or not.
Science: The a posteriori method draws conclusions from evidence, observation and knowledge.

I prefer the latter, because it not only tells us what is consistent with reality, but demonstrates what is actually real. It makes tests, looks for evidence, falsifies claims. The former is like sitting in a big ol´ armchair, which is all nice....

What you basically said is that metaphysics is philosophy, while science is....science. Duh.

Did we really need 50 pages for this insight?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2017 05:19 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 11:20 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 09:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief means you accept something as true. The term has no bearing on justification. You mention evidence again. And I have to ask again what is evidence?

Belief is the acceptance of a truth claim without no evidence to support it so it has everything to do with faith.

With all due respect, you're wrong. Religious faith (a subset of belief) is the acceptance of a truth claim with no evidence to support it. Belief in general is not so limited. I believe Magnus Carlsen is the world's best chess player. I believe it's going to rain some time this week. I believe that it is wrong to execute convicted criminals. There is evidence for all of these, but none of them is a sure thing. Hence I present them as beliefs rather than facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
09-04-2017, 05:18 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 11:47 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I have not seen all the discussions here, but certainly here the difference is minimal in post quality.

Yeah there is.
He was trying to defend something with no evidence.

To be fair, Naielis is presenting metaphysical claims and arguments, so evidence is irrelevant. You can pooh-pooh metaphysics in general if you like, but it makes no sense to criticize a metaphysical argument for lacking evidence. That's sort of like criticizing a basketball player for not using a nine iron.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
09-04-2017, 05:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 05:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yeah there is.
He was trying to defend something with no evidence.

To be fair, Naielis is presenting metaphysical claims and arguments, so evidence is irrelevant. You can pooh-pooh metaphysics in general if you like, but it makes no sense to criticize a metaphysical argument for lacking evidence. That's sort of like criticizing a basketball player for not using a nine iron.

I think not. The discussion was about very specific brain functions, and his paper was about "properties", not metaphysics.

I do pooh-pooh metaphysics. He's obviously VERY VERY invested in it. He's frustrated as metaphysics is not valued here. I asked more than once how he came to know what he claimed he knew, and he didn't answer.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 06:02 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 05:10 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 11:20 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  Belief is the acceptance of a truth claim without no evidence to support it so it has everything to do with faith.

With all due respect, you're wrong. Religious faith (a subset of belief) is the acceptance of a truth claim with no evidence to support it. Belief in general is not so limited. I believe Magnus Carlsen is the world's best chess player. I believe it's going to rain some time this week. I believe that it is wrong to execute convicted criminals. There is evidence for all of these, but none of them is a sure thing. Hence I present them as beliefs rather than facts.

You're not using the term in the same way surreptitious57 is. He IS talking about religious beliefs. Saying he's wrong because YOU chose to use the term more broadly is unfair. You have reasons, based on past experience, to hold as valid, the opinions you have regarding the probability of things, (Carlsen will continue to win chess matches, how often it rained in the past where you live). You also have arrived at moral convictions, based on various inputs, concerning them. Using the word "beliefs", as you use it, and presenting it as if it were in the same category as religious beliefs, (because the same word is used, which can have more than one meaning), is not really an accurate presentation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 08:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 10:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Epistemic certainty is only at my foundation. It concerns only my ability to reason, introspection, and my own existence.

So you claim, even AFTER changing your position on something you were BEFORE certain about, AND your total inability to demonstrate how you arrived at that position.
A wee bit of self-refutation in there ... LOL.

No one here takes you seriously.
When did I claim certainty of anything I changed my position on? What are you talking about?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 08:49 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 11:23 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:55 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No. Science is the best way to study observable physical reality. Reality and existence as a whole can best be studied by the a priori method of metaphysics.
Let me try to unravel this by rephrasing and make visible what your statment has hidden, by accident or ignorance, i dont know.

Metaphysics: The a priori method takes logical/rational arguments to prove if something is true or not.
Science: The a posteriori method draws conclusions from evidence, observation and knowledge.

I prefer the latter, because it not only tells us what is consistent with reality, but demonstrates what is actually real. It makes tests, looks for evidence, falsifies claims. The former is like sitting in a big ol´ armchair, which is all nice....

What you basically said is that metaphysics is philosophy, while science is....science. Duh.

Did we really need 50 pages for this insight?

The 50 pages is about materialism not metaphysics in general. And you can prefer science, but the two are not at odds. It's simply that metaphysics can tell you nothing about particulars whereas science can't even begin unless you have established metaphysical laws or some set ontology.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 08:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 11:20 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 09:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief means you accept something as true. The term has no
bearing on justification. You mention evidence again. And I have to ask again what is evidence?

Belief is the acceptance of a truth claim without no evidence to support it so it has everything to do with faith. Faith positions especially religious faith positions have no evidence
to support them at all. And specifically ones that contradict the laws of physics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any truth claim with no supporting evidence [ extraordinary or otherwise ] can be dismissed or treated with scepticism until evidence can be found to support it. The problem with accepting truth claims with no evidence to
support them is that the claims could be wrong. And this is why evidence is so important. It has to be physical and capable of examination by multiple observers [ scientists with
expertise in a particular field ] to eliminate or minimise bias. If it is to support a testable hypothesis then the hypothesis in question has to be repeatable and potentially falsiable

Grasshopper already addressed your point about belief. But I'm interested in your claim about the laws of physics. Are these metaphysical laws? Are they something you accept axiomatically because of a certain ontology you hold? This is what I mean when I say metaphysics comes before science. The very principles that ground science are in fact discovered and established by metaphysics and epistemology.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 08:54 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 05:10 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  With all due respect, you're wrong. Religious faith (a subset of belief) is the acceptance of a truth claim with no evidence to support it. Belief in general is not so limited. I believe Magnus Carlsen is the world's best chess player. I believe it's going to rain some time this week. I believe that it is wrong to execute convicted criminals. There is evidence for all of these, but none of them is a sure thing. Hence I present them as beliefs rather than facts.

You're not using the term in the same way surreptitious57 is. He IS talking about religious beliefs. Saying he's wrong because YOU chose to use the term more broadly is unfair. You have reasons, based on past experience, to hold as valid, the opinions you have regarding the probability of things, (Carlsen will continue to win chess matches, how often it rained in the past where you live). You also have arrived at moral convictions, based on various inputs, concerning them. Using the word "beliefs", as you use it, and presenting it as if it were in the same category as religious beliefs, (because the same word is used, which can have more than one meaning), is not really an accurate presentation.

Yes but I think the point is that belief shouldn't be used to refer only to religious faith. It's confusing to do so considering in every other context it is used more generally.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: