POTM for Noctiluca Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)

urthogie wrote:

On May 7, 10:34 am, noctiluca <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 6, 7:04 pm, urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 6:38 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Warning to urthogie and anyone else put off by a comparison with ID -
This post may contain material that is unsuitable for some readers.
Please proceed with caution.]



urthogie wrote:
Why do you insist on knowing my specific philosophical views? I
didn't post this to argue for a philosophy, but rather to point out
that the materialist view on consciousness is grounded in philosophy
rather than science. The only reason you're grilling me on my
philosophical views is because you want absolute materialism to be
correct.

Oh, we want lots of different things. You didn't start this thread to
argue about where a materialist view comes from. We all know that
science is grounded in philosophy, and that shades into matters of
personal choice. You came in reproaching us all for disagreeing with
someone2, and demanding that we must accept your interpretation and
understanding of consciousness. Not only tolerate it, but adopt it
ourselves. So far, no sale, eh?

I don't reproach everyone, just those who took things a bit too far.

But of course this depends entirely upon what you think "too far" is
and whether you can articulate and defend you interpretation of this
activity as inappropriate. To this point I don't think you have done
so.

This is specifically why I *didn't* name names. And while science may
be based on philosophy, it isn't based on a philosophy of absolute
materialism, and by no means attempts to extend its domain to the
realm of the unfalsifiable or unverifiable.

Do you not see how you have begged the question once more?

There are few here for whom an assertion that science cannot address
questions of God would provoke much of a reaction beyond bored assent.
But suggesting that of a phenomenon which is conceived of and accepted
as ontologically separate from the natural universe is very different
from taking a poorly, but partially, understood physical process and
creating a (arbitrary in my opinion) controversial demarcation that
classes that which we don't yet understand as un-understandable.

This is, unfortunately, the same approach as that of some pseudo-
science proponents (including IDers) who suggest that coherent,
connected chains of causal explanation may be found to dead-end at a
place where non-material epistemologies must be counted upon to
provide further understanding. Consider this quote from Phillip
Johnson which, in my opinion, embodies most of the misconceptions you
have been proffering here:

"The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it
takes a sound methodological premise of natural science and transforms
it into a dogmatic statement about the nature of the universe. Science
is committed by definition to empiricism, by which I mean that
scientists seek to find truth by observation, experiment and
calculation rather than by studying sacred books or achieving mystical
states of mind. It may well be, however, that there are certain
questions - important questions, ones to which we desperately want to
know the answers - that cannot be answered by the methods available to
our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues
such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have
become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life first
began or how complex biological systems were put together."

It seems to me one could substitute your ideas about consciousness for
those references to organismal biology above and lose little of the
meaning. But this seemingly unthreatening rumination is, to my
thinking, an argument that is particularly dangerous for science. It's
not a claim that can be proven to be untrue, but it is something that,
even if it is only offered as speculation rather than procedural
recommendation, strikes at our concept of how science works.

As advanced by Johnson, it's a suggestion meant to undermine
confidence in how we approach natural investigation, thus allowing
inference to non-natural agency without restriction. But even if you
do not offer it to the same end, the concept still requires careful
scrutiny as it suggests that there are broad areas of natural inquiry
that we can simply disregard as potentially explicable. Why? Because
they are "known" to be an empirical dead zone, a place where natural
investigation doesn't work.

If you accept the logic here, you can then understand why this issue
prompts intense interest among some people (including myself). Any
suggestion, even if offered innocently, that natural explanation may
encounter a barrier smack in the middle of what appears to be a
physically continuous and contiguous set of processes must be acutely
examined because of its profound implications for how the universe
works.

RLC

Thanks for the warning, I didn't read it.

That's a pity, it was just nominated For Post of the Month.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... that the materialist view on consciousness is grounded in philosophy ... rather than science. ... philosophical views is because you want absolute materialism to be ... "The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... that the materialist view on consciousness is grounded in philosophy ... rather than science. ... philosophical views is because you want absolute materialism to be ... "The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Modern evolutionism is just a rehash of Carvaka
    ... Modern materialist philosophy, as well as modern naturalist philosophy, ... genuine science has never excluded God on the basis of narrow ... But science itself is independent of both naturalism and ... complicated DNA replicators, then our entire life would be focused ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... that the materialist view on consciousness is grounded in philosophy ... rather than science. ... philosophical views is because you want absolute materialism to be ... "The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: life vs materialism
    ... supernaturalism would be incorporated into the scientific method. ... model will be incorporated into science ... Have you ever studies anything remotely resembling philosophy, materialism, etc.? ... "The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading