Posted: Oct 08, 2018 9:59 pm
Ah, it's in tray time again ...
The question is irrelevant. Because I don't defend "isms" full stop. What I care about is whether or not an assertion is consonant with observed data. If an assertion, to the effect that a "non-material" entity is required for a given phenomenon, is supported by data, then I'll welcome an addition to the knowledge base of our species. Until then, I see no reason to treat such assertions in any manner other than the way I treat all assertions - namely, as having the status "truth value unknown" until tests of the assertions in question are conducted.
No. But I am opposed to this being blindly asserted. See above.
Bit difficult to take that position the moment one learns even elementary aspects of quantum physics.
This presume that a properly constituted, rigorous alternative methodology exists. Provide one and I'll be interested.
Maybe there isn't? This itself is a question requiring diligent study. Prepared to engage therein?
Andrew4Handel wrote:People who defend physicalism or materialism what is the alternative that you are opposed to?
The question is irrelevant. Because I don't defend "isms" full stop. What I care about is whether or not an assertion is consonant with observed data. If an assertion, to the effect that a "non-material" entity is required for a given phenomenon, is supported by data, then I'll welcome an addition to the knowledge base of our species. Until then, I see no reason to treat such assertions in any manner other than the way I treat all assertions - namely, as having the status "truth value unknown" until tests of the assertions in question are conducted.
Andrew4Handel wrote:Are you opposed to things not being reducible to atoms or matter?
No. But I am opposed to this being blindly asserted. See above.
Andrew4Handel wrote:Are you opposed to things not having causes?
Bit difficult to take that position the moment one learns even elementary aspects of quantum physics.
Andrew4Handel wrote:Or are you opposed to things being inexplicable or to or uninvestigatable by the scientific methodology?
This presume that a properly constituted, rigorous alternative methodology exists. Provide one and I'll be interested.
Andrew4Handel wrote:Maybe there's something else?
Maybe there isn't? This itself is a question requiring diligent study. Prepared to engage therein?