Posted: Sep 20, 2013 9:15 pm
Rumraket wrote:Mick wrote:Rumraket wrote:Mick wrote:
That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.
From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.
What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.
Your first statement is question begging.
I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.Mick wrote:Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary. You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.
Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.
The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.
Do you even know what my epistemology is? Please elucidate it for us.
You sound mad that you don't get to presume that I am making extraordinary claims, at least not without begging the question. Philosophy is hard, isn't it? Rather than pout and stamp your feet, perhaps you should bracket your presumption that my claims are extraordinary and then argue for it.