Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2013, 08:47 AM
Materialist Bias?
So, a few weeks, back in the Census of Quirinius thread, Alpha Male said the following in response to me:

(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:and he makes rather extraordinary claims that haven't been backed up elsewhere, except for the other gospels. Note that other sources which make other extraordinary claims are simply assumed to be mythology instead of history. The gospels are given unusually high credibility based on special pleading alone.
And this is the real reason: a priori materialist bias.

I pressed him a bit to discuss this, and more than once, he said it was a red herring and that I should start another thread, so I'm doing just that.



So, what is "Materialist bias"? From the context, it looks like if we are assuming that things that we can observe have precedence over things that we cannot or have not yet, it is somehow biased. I suppose this is true in the strictest sense of the word, but to give that any weight seems like it make it impossible to function in the real world.

So far as I can tell, if I'm looking for cars before I cross the road, I see a car, and wait for it to pass, I'm being biased, or something. I suppose it's technically possible that I'm in the Matrix and I could jump over the car if I wanted, or maybe the car is a ghost car and insubstantial, or something. I guess I don't know that, and that is some weird form of bias, but it seems like an incredibly useful bias to have. So far as I can tell, to actually be truly unbiased in this sense of the word, you wold have to be functionally, and quite literally insane. Like, you have to simultaneously assume there are and are not poltergeists moving your car keys on you, or else you're biased.

This looks like one of those cute things that you discuss in a single class of Philosophy 101 and then promptly put on a shelf since it seems to be useless in the really real world.

So, what did I miss? Is that it? Is this just a thing to say when someone proves you wrong with evidence? Did I misrepresent something, because that's seriously what I could glean from the context of the original thread, and it just seems weird and useless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
27-12-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 08:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, a few weeks, back in the Census of Quirinius thread, Alpha Male said the following in response to me:

(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  And this is the real reason: a priori materialist bias.

I pressed him a bit to discuss this, and more than once, he said it was a red herring and that I should start another thread, so I'm doing just that.



So, what is "Materialist bias"? From the context, it looks like if we are assuming that things that we can observe have precedence over things that we cannot or have not yet, it is somehow biased. I suppose this is true in the strictest sense of the word, but to give that any weight seems like it make it impossible to function in the real world.

So far as I can tell, if I'm looking for cars before I cross the road, I see a car, and wait for it to pass, I'm being biased, or something. I suppose it's technically possible that I'm in the Matrix and I could jump over the car if I wanted, or maybe the car is a ghost car and insubstantial, or something. I guess I don't know that, and that is some weird form of bias, but it seems like an incredibly useful bias to have. So far as I can tell, to actually be truly unbiased in this sense of the word, you wold have to be functionally, and quite literally insane. Like, you have to simultaneously assume there are and are not poltergeists moving your car keys on you, or else you're biased.

This looks like one of those cute things that you discuss in a single class of Philosophy 101 and then promptly put on a shelf since it seems to be useless in the really real world.

So, what did I miss? Is that it? Is this just a thing to say when someone proves you wrong with evidence? Did I misrepresent something, because that's seriously what I could glean from the context of the original thread, and it just seems weird and useless.



Caution:
Although I admire your due diligence in proposing understanding for us ALL by starting this thread for more investigation you have missed one very important factor in play here: Alphadork enjoys word salad and his tossing the term "Biased" is his most favorite convo-disruption from what I can tell. Just a friendly note from lil ol me based on reading and observation and No Doubt my BIASED view.
*snort*

carry on

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
27-12-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
True, although I would like him to expand on what he was talking about, because I found it completely baffling. Also, I forgot to include in the OP the question I asked him in response that he refused to answer three times. So, I'll ask it again here:

Let's say you ask me how I got to work. If I told you I drove my car, you would probably trust me. If I told you I took my helicopter, you'd probably be skeptical. You might trust me if a mutual friend confirmed it and said they flew in it.

Now, what if I told you I flew my Pegasus? What would it take for you to believe it? Why did you give this answer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
27-12-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
You can live a great life without dubious supernatural belief or claims. Supernatural is the fear of the unknown, plain and simple. It's simply naturalistic phenomena that we simply don't understand yet. It would be awesome to run through walls but I assure you, that kind of thinking will only cause severe headaches..and broken bones. Unless you're on a movie set. Then again...

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 09:01 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Caution:
Although I admire your due diligence in proposing understanding for us ALL by starting this thread for more investigation you have missed one very important factor in play here: Alphadork enjoys word salad and his tossing the term "Biased" is his most favorite convo-disruption from what I can tell. Just a friendly note from lil ol me based on reading and observation and No Doubt my BIASED view.
*snort*

carry on

You just say that because of your anti-word-salad bias.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
27-12-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 09:39 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 09:01 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Caution:
Although I admire your due diligence in proposing understanding for us ALL by starting this thread for more investigation you have missed one very important factor in play here: Alphadork enjoys word salad and his tossing the term "Biased" is his most favorite convo-disruption from what I can tell. Just a friendly note from lil ol me based on reading and observation and No Doubt my BIASED view.
*snort*

carry on

You just say that because of your anti-word-salad bias.


absofuckinglutely ThumbsupThumbsup


Heart

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 09:39 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 09:01 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Alphadork enjoys word salad and his tossing the term "Biased" is his most favorite convo-disruption from what I can tell.

You just say that because of your anti-word-salad bias.

So, if I started trying to remove all bias from my world view, would I have an anti-bias bias?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
27-12-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 09:59 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 09:39 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  You just say that because of your anti-word-salad bias.

So, if I started trying to remove all bias from my world view, would I have an anti-bias bias?


K - now you're just making my head hurt. LOL But I think the answer to that is "yes". We'll have to let Alphadork weigh in to further understand what it is that he means/meant.

and no....... I'm not holding my breath that the explanation will merit great attention. But I DO understand you asking, Robby.

rock on

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Materialistic bias is a good thing. The word bias carries negative connotations but in some cases it is good. The purpose of skepticism and pretty much the entire body of science is to better understand our REALITY. This is also what we try to achieve in this entire forum. The default position would be materialism because we are tangible beings. We live in a tangible world in a tangible environment. This is NOT the matrix where "the spoon isn't really there". This is that "if you bang your head hard enough on a wall you'll die" thing. Therefore the default position should always be materialism.

Courts of law the world over are bias towards the truth. Is this a bad thing? I certainly hope that anyone that identifies as a human being would say no. Therefore some biases are valid and others are not. A truth bias is valid. A materialism bias is valid.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlackMason's post
27-12-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Theists claim that your materialist presuppositions don't allow you to consider the possibility of the supernatural. This is a foundational argument of presuppositional apologetics (Van Til, Bahnsen). It's important to remind them that you can't rule out the possibility, rather, there is simply no evidence for it at any point in history. So it's not a matter of worldview or presuppositions ruling anything out a priori, but simply a matter of weighing evidence. This removes the 'ism' from it, and is a useful transition to a discussion of the illegitimacy of faith as a means for knowing anything, and it's own presuppositional bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like freetoreason's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: