An immaterial question

RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
An immaterial question

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Mass' does not exclusively apply to 'matter'.

Energy effectively has mass, according to a certain famous equation:   m = E/c2 ( normally presented as  E = mc2 ).

So energy has mass but is not matter - it is 'immaterial' in that basic sense. 

What do you mean "in that basic sense"?  This is just a redefining of terms in different contexts. 

If it has mass, it is not immaterial.  It is that simple.  I don't care what kind of wordplay you do.
 

You are the one indulging in 'wordplay'. Energy has mass, and object in a higher energy state has more mass, even when it has exactly the same number of particles of matter.

Light is not matter, but it is affected by gravity, which is the force between masses.

Quote:

Quote:
"Classical philosophical understanding" is superseded by modern actual science-based understanding of any subject.

Not at all.  You are adhering to a metaphysical worldview of empiricism, which has not been justified by scientific means.  Therefore, your science is enslaved to philosophy.

But poisoning the well aside, none of what you said is inconsistent with the definition of "immaterial" being "lacking any physical properties", which is the classical philosophical understanding.  Energy is material, any way you slice it.

Science justifies empiricism, and supersedes philosophy, when they address the same issues.

Empiricism does not provide 100% verification, that is not how it works. But it at least has some independent justification, unlike conclusions based purely on applying logic to unprovable pre-suppositions, which can only be either speculation or tautologies (conclusions merely elucidating relationships between the assumed axioms), or some mix of those.

Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Energy is

BobSpence1 wrote:

Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

Thanks for your clarification. You see, this is why I don't like philosophy, it confuses things by taking them from various points of view, but not from the practical one.
OK, so where in that definition belongs dark matter?
In the podcast Skeptic's guide to the universe (1st of 2010) I heard about it. I heard about an observation of two colliding gas clouds. The observation gave a clear result that gas clouds collided and stopped (like two cars in a crash) but dark matter within them continued in motion. (like unrestrained drivers within these cars) 

I am highly interested in such a topics, because I am naturally aware of matter around us, that is otherwise invisible and intangible to most of humanity. For me it's a daily reality, and I want some results, not philosophical ramblings. There is obviously immaterial or nonphysical or less-physical matter that is real beyond doubt. If skeptics are so crazy about having things exactly defined, then they need the damn definition, before they can start taking this topic seriously.
Here's my favorite quote on that subject:

Benjamin Creme on conference wrote:
Ehteric matter and contemporary science
How far are scientists in discovering four level of etheric matter?

Quite close, really. They estabilished something that they call "dark matter". They know it exists, but are unable to define it exactly. Their calculations show, that there's something they missed out. That there is some material substance, that is invisible. They can't prove it, but all their calculations point at the fact, that this level of matter exists.

These are the etheric levels of matter. Scientists could only look into some esoteric magazine and they would find out what is ether. But they rather create cyclotron for 20 billions and spend years by sending electric current through it and by constant speeding up, to find out what the matter is. But they could find it out quite easily, just by opening for example Blavatsky's Secret doctrine.

Some scientists know about discovery of Wilhelm Reich, about his orgone from 1939. Orgone is nothing else but four levels of etheric matter. Reich saw them as one material field. But in fact this field is divided into four levels, each more and more finer.

Some people succesfully continued in his experiments. On what level and to what extent it became known in the world, I don't know. Today many astronomers speak of dark matter. They know, that there is something to what all their experiments point, but what wasn't yet proven to be anything but an idea.

So, dark matter equals orgone equals etheric level of matter. They're the same. In relatively short time scientists either discover it, or it will be revealed to them. How it will happen, I don't know.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Would any

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

does time only exist because the earth goes round the sun?......and why do you need to nervously define immaterial entities as "independent" anyway? What of those which are not "independent"?

now please define "material".......last time I looked it was all energy.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:RatDog

freeminer wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

does time only exist because the earth goes round the sun?......and why do you need to nervously define immaterial entities as "independent" anyway? What of those which are not "independent"?

now please define "material".......last time I looked it was all energy.

 

Wrong - there is matter and energy - matter can convert to an equivalent amount of energy, and vice versa, but they are distinct states, distinct sets of fundamental particles.

Matter is the foundation of form, energy is a requirement for motion of any kind, if you want it expressed compactly.

'Immaterial' as a description of attributes of matter and energy is not a problem. The concepts of weight, length, velocity, are 'immaterial - you can't give me a chunk of 'length'.

It is the confused idea of an 'immaterial' object or entity which is being addressed bty the OP, I think, IOW something NOT merely a concept or description of 'real' things.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Science

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science justifies empiricism, and supersedes philosophy, when they address the same issues.

Empiricism does not provide 100% verification, that is not how it works. But it at least has some independent justification

Science does not, in any way, shape or form, justify empiricism.  To assert otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what empiricism is.  Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which holds that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  Since derivation from sense experience is not contained in the definition of "knowledge", I am not sure what it is that you possess which constitutes an independent justification for the universal claim that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  It certainly cannot be our observations, since we are finite and cannot observe every instance of a particular phenomenon.

The central flaw in empiricism is that it does not do justice to the very self that longs to know.  The subject to which all knowing is predicated of is itself not an object of sensation and therefore cannot be understood empirically, yet its being is understood.  Empiricism, then, is demonstrably false.  Furthermore, empiricism is an arbitrarily limiting epistemology which does nothing for the advancement of human knowledge.  It simply puts us in an epistemic straightjacket, positing that we can only know what our senses tell us, whereas other epistemologies broaden the scope between the knowing and the knowable. 

Do not make the mistake of confusing the knowledge derived through scientific inquiry with the metaphysics which may or may not underly the investigation.  You cannot necessarily credit empiricism with the success of science.

Quote:
Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

I'm not a physicist, so I'd have to do some research re: matter vs. energy.  My understanding is that matter constitutes all the different conglomerations of elementary particles while energy is what gives matter the ability to change its state.  For example, kinetic energy allows material things to move, potential energy allows material things to restore their position after being acted on by some external force, light energy allows material things to be seen, etc.  Of course, the last time I studied physics was as an undergrad and I could be off on this.

You are making the mistake of conflating epistemic accessibility with sensation, which is ultimately based on your presupposition that empiricism is true.  Since you have yet to justify empiricism as an epistemology, your premise is unjustified.  How do you know that non-physical things are purely speculative?  How do you know that measurability or detectability by the senses is the only metric by which we determine that something is? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5213

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_dualism.htm

I'm not going to argue for one position over some other, I just want you to appreciate the fact that your assertion is by no means a closed case in academia.  If you are going to make metaphysical assertions, please justify them using metaphysics.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:BobSpence1

Godchild wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science justifies empiricism, and supersedes philosophy, when they address the same issues.

Empiricism does not provide 100% verification, that is not how it works. But it at least has some independent justification

Science does not, in any way, shape or form, justify empiricism.  To assert otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what empiricism is.  Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which holds that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  Since derivation from sense experience is not contained in the definition of "knowledge", I am not sure what it is that you possess which constitutes an independent justification for the universal claim that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  It certainly cannot be our observations, since we are finite and cannot observe every instance of a particular phenomenon.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Quote:

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or tradition.

In a related sense, empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

That pretty well sums up what I was claiming.

It is not up to me to justify empiricism, it is for you to provide some justification for the validity of alternative sources of 'knowledge'.

We certainly do NOT need to "observe every instance of a particular phenomenon" to gain useful and meaningful knowledge of it, unless we wanted to make 100% accurate and completely universal assertions about it, which is not what science or empiricism is about. It is about assessment of degrees of confidence in any proposition

Quote:

The central flaw in empiricism is that it does not do justice to the very self that longs to know.  The subject to which all knowing is predicated of is itself not an object of sensation and therefore cannot be understood empirically, yet its being is understood.  Empiricism, then, is demonstrably false.  Furthermore, empiricism is an arbitrarily limiting epistemology which does nothing for the advancement of human knowledge.  It simply puts us in an epistemic straightjacket, positing that we can only know what our senses tell us, whereas other epistemologies broaden the scope between the knowing and the knowable. 

Do not make the mistake of confusing the knowledge derived through scientific inquiry with the metaphysics which may or may not underly the investigation.  You cannot necessarily credit empiricism with the success of science.

Any approach to gaining knowledge that does not check its proposition or starting assumptions against some experimentally or observationally verifiable data is speculation. 

Quote:

Quote:
Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

I'm not a physicist, so I'd have to do some research re: matter vs. energy.  My understanding is that matter constitutes all the different conglomerations of elementary particles while energy is what gives matter the ability to change its state.  For example, kinetic energy allows material things to move, potential energy allows material things to restore their position after being acted on by some external force, light energy allows material things to be seen, etc.  Of course, the last time I studied physics was as an undergrad and I could be off on this.

You are making the mistake of conflating epistemic accessibility with sensation, which is ultimately based on your presupposition that empiricism is true.  Since you have yet to justify empiricism as an epistemology, your premise is unjustified.  How do you know that non-physical things are purely speculative?  How do you know that measurability or detectability by the senses is the only metric by which we determine that something is? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5213

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_dualism.htm

I'm not going to argue for one position over some other, I just want you to appreciate the fact that your assertion is by no means a closed case in academia.  If you are going to make metaphysical assertions, please justify them using metaphysics. 

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, potential energy is effectively stored energy. 'Light energy' is a form of electromagnetic radiation that propagates through space as variations in the strength of electric and magnetic fields, alternatively envisaged as particles known as photons.

How do you distinguish between imagined or internally generated experiences from ones hypothetically caused by some entity that has an independent existent?

Empirical data is not limited or determined by the ability of our senses to directly 'sense' something, data relayed through our senses from our instruments can be vastly more sensitive and accurate, and convey to us information way beyond our innate capabilities to perceive. All our senses need to be able to handle is the position of needles on dials, or the numbers on a digital display, which can be read with virtually 100% accuracy. This is in fact the main source of new information in science, the accuracy and reliability of our senses is not relevant. If we personally have doubts we can have colleagues check it for us.

Nothing can be 'justified' with metaphysics, since metaphysics itself cannot be justified.

Our confidence in the validity of any particular empirical data is greatly enhanced by cross-correlating as many different 'channels' of sensation or instrumentation as possible.

I am quite comfortable with my position, you have not presented anything which really challenges it. I really don't care that 'academia' is not in universal agreement with it, I do not expect that it would be.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That pretty

BobSpence1 wrote:

That pretty well sums up what I was claiming.

It is not up to me to justify empiricism, it is for you to provide some justification for the validity of alternative sources of 'knowledge'.

It is up to you to justify empiricism because it is a metaphysical position that you put forth as being valid.  Here is what you've stated:

"Science justifies empiricism."

"'Classical philosophical understanding' is superseded by modern actual science-based understanding of any subject."

It is not my responsibility to refute claims that you do not back up.

Furthermore, I'm not quite clear as to why you've put the word "knowledge" in quotes.  Are you suggesting that knowledge does not really exist or that it is somehow a misnomer? 

Quote:
We certainly do NOT need to "observe every instance of a particular phenomenon" to gain useful and meaningful knowledge of it

Empiricism postulates that all knowledge is acquired through sense experience.  Therefore, in order for empiricism to be vindicated, you'd have to observe that for any thing which is known or potentially knowable, that knowledge was acquired through empirical observation. 

Quote:
unless we wanted to make 100% accurate and completely universal assertions about it, which is not what science or empiricism is about. It is about assessment of degrees of confidence in any proposition

It is what empiricism is about.  Empiricism is a universal assertion that empirical observation is the only way towards knowledge.

"Empiricism is the philosophical concept that experience, which is based on observation and experimentation, is the source of knowledge."

http://www.answers.com/topic/what-is-empiricism

"Empiricism is a philosophical theory which argues that human knowledge is derived entirely from sensory experience. As a branch of epistemology, empiricism disregards the concept of instinctive ideas and focuses entirely on experience and evidence as it relates to sensory perception. Ferociously debated, the philosophy of empiricism eventually spawned additional schools which would take it to different levels of application and direction."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-empiricism.htm

"Empiricism is the belief in philosophy or psychology that all knowledge is the result of our experiences. (See John Locke's Tabula rasa or "blank slate" theory.) Empiricism is closely allied with (philosophical) materialism and positivism and opposed to continental rationalism or intuitionism."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Empiricism/

Quote:
Any approach to gaining knowledge that does not check its proposition or starting assumptions against some experimentally or observationally verifiable data is speculation. 

Again, that's based on your presupposition that empiricism is true.  You are on a philosophy forum discussing metaphysics.  Are you willing to actually consider other epistemologies that are out there?

Quote:
How do you distinguish between imagined or internally generated experiences from ones hypothetically caused by some entity that has an independent existent?

I don't understand the question.

Quote:
Empirical data is not limited or determined by the ability of our senses to directly 'sense' something, data relayed through our senses from our instruments can be vastly more sensitive and accurate, and convey to us information way beyond our innate capabilities to perceive. All our senses need to be able to handle is the position of needles on dials, or the numbers on a digital display, which can be read with virtually 100% accuracy. This is in fact the main source of new information in science, the accuracy and reliability of our senses is not relevant. If we personally have doubts we can have colleagues check it for us.

What is the relevance of this? 

Quote:
Nothing can be 'justified' with metaphysics, since metaphysics itself cannot be justified.

What exactly is your fascination with putting words in quotes?  I do not understand why you keep doing that.  Is that your way of saying that I am misusing terms? 

Based on this comment, I'm going to presume that you do not understand what metaphysics is.  Metaphysics is not a philosophical position, it's a field of study.  That is like saying, "Mathematics cannot be justified."  Metaphysics itself is not making any assertions.  It is the study of being.

Quote:
Our confidence in the validity of any particular empirical data is greatly enhanced by cross-correlating as many different 'channels' of sensation or instrumentation as possible.

I am quite comfortable with my position, you have not presented anything which really challenges it. I really don't care that 'academia' is not in universal agreement with it, I do not expect that it would be.

I've mentioned several problems with empiricism.  The problem is that you do not even appear to understand what empiricism or metaphysics actually is.  As such, you are totally ignorant of the fact that such ideas cannot be defended scientifically, such that when I present an argument, you practically ignore it and bring up matters which have nothing to do with what we are discussing.  This is made apparent when you cite things like needles, dials, digital display, peer review, etc.  All of this stuff is irrelevant in philosophy. 

I totally understand if you think philosophy is fundamentally useless, but this is a philosophy forum.  If you are unwilling to engage in philosophical discussions, then why post here?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:BobSpence1

Godchild wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That pretty well sums up what I was claiming.

It is not up to me to justify empiricism, it is for you to provide some justification for the validity of alternative sources of 'knowledge'.

It is up to you to justify empiricism because it is a metaphysical position that you put forth as being valid.  Here is what you've stated:

"Science justifies empiricism."

"'Classical philosophical understanding' is superseded by modern actual science-based understanding of any subject."

It is not my responsibility to refute claims that you do not back up.

Furthermore, I'm not quite clear as to why you've put the word "knowledge" in quotes. Are you suggesting that knowledge does not really exist or that it is somehow a misnomer?

In the absence of a demonstrated, plausible alternative source of knowledge, I am quite happy to assume empiricism by default. If you can show how some other path for comparable knowledge, please do. It's somewhat like the classic God argument requiring us to absolutely show there is no evidence for God anywhere in the Universe.

If you insist on the absolute version of a definition of empiricism, I just respond that I can't absolutely prove it, but that makes it no different from any other knowledge, that it is impossible to establish the 100% certainty of any non-tautolgical proposition.

I put "knowledge" in quotes knowledge is really just one end of a spectrum of belief, with apparently strong justification and held with high confidence. What is 'knowledge' to one individual, or one society, at a particular point in time, will not necessarily count as such in another context and time. IOW, I regard it as a logically slippery term.

I do this to highlight any term which I regard as a bit questionable, not quite capturing the meaning I intend, but the closest I can think of to apply without a long and tedious qualification.

Quote:

Quote:
We certainly do NOT need to "observe every instance of a particular phenomenon" to gain useful and meaningful knowledge of it

Empiricism postulates that all knowledge is acquired through sense experience.  Therefore, in order for empiricism to be vindicated, you'd have to observe that for any thing which is known or potentially knowable, that knowledge was acquired through empirical observation. 

Quote:
unless we wanted to make 100% accurate and completely universal assertions about it, which is not what science or empiricism is about. It is about assessment of degrees of confidence in any proposition

It is what empiricism is about.  Empiricism is a universal assertion that empirical observation is the only way towards knowledge.

"Empiricism is the philosophical concept that experience, which is based on observation and experimentation, is the source of knowledge."

http://www.answers.com/topic/what-is-empiricism

"Empiricism is a philosophical theory which argues that human knowledge is derived entirely from sensory experience. As a branch of epistemology, empiricism disregards the concept of instinctive ideas and focuses entirely on experience and evidence as it relates to sensory perception. Ferociously debated, the philosophy of empiricism eventually spawned additional schools which would take it to different levels of application and direction."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-empiricism.htm

"Empiricism is the belief in philosophy or psychology that all knowledge is the result of our experiences. (See John Locke's Tabula rasa or "blank slate" theory.) Empiricism is closely allied with (philosophical) materialism and positivism and opposed to continental rationalism or intuitionism."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Empiricism/

See my comment above, re the definition of 'empiricism'.

Quote:

Quote:
Any approach to gaining knowledge that does not check its proposition or starting assumptions against some experimentally or observationally verifiable data is speculation.

Again, that's based on your presupposition that empiricism is true. You are on a philosophy forum discussing metaphysics. Are you willing to actually consider other epistemologies that are out there?

Sure, tell me about them.

Quote:

Quote:
How do you distinguish between imagined or internally generated experiences from ones hypothetically caused by some entity that has an independent existent?

I don't understand the question.

Interesting. I may have not quite conveyed what I intended clearly enough, so let me try to put it another way.

On the assumption that you can acquire or simply possess knowledge worthy of labelling as such, by 'instinctive' sources, as one of your quoted definitions said empiricism rejected, how do you establish than any given instinctive or intuitive proposition is actually true, given that there is massive evidence that many such instincts and intuitions are simply acquired or inherited 'shortcuts' that allow us to respond more quickly to situations that we could by explicit conscious reasoning, and not necessarily 'true' or useful beyond a specific set of circumstances?

Instinct and its function is the subject of considerable scientific, empirical study, so empirically it does exist, it just not appear to be a reliable source of factual knowledge.

Quote:

Quote:
Empirical data is not limited or determined by the ability of our senses to directly 'sense' something, data relayed through our senses from our instruments can be vastly more sensitive and accurate, and convey to us information way beyond our innate capabilities to perceive. All our senses need to be able to handle is the position of needles on dials, or the numbers on a digital display, which can be read with virtually 100% accuracy. This is in fact the main source of new information in science, the accuracy and reliability of our senses is not relevant. If we personally have doubts we can have colleagues check it for us.

What is the relevance of this?

It shows that the 'unreliability' of our senses is not necessarily a constraint on the reliability of information gained via our senses.

Again, interesting that you don't see the relevance.

Quote:

Quote:
Nothing can be 'justified' with metaphysics, since metaphysics itself cannot be justified.

What exactly is your fascination with putting words in quotes? I do not understand why you keep doing that. Is that your way of saying that I am misusing terms?

Based on this comment, I'm going to presume that you do not understand what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is not a philosophical position, it's a field of study. That is like saying, "Mathematics cannot be justified." Metaphysics itself is not making any assertions. It is the study of being.

As I said previously, I do it to highlight terms which I feel should not be quite taken in the standard meaning, for various reasons.

Ok, so if it comes to no conclusions, it is even more pointless and irrelevant that I thought. It is now, by definition, non-empirical, since empirical investigation has been subsumed into Science.

Any system of knowledge has to have some initial assumptions or axioms, as with Mathematics and Logic. Such non-empirical studies are based purely on the application and working out of the implications of the axioms, and so is completely dependent on how accurately those axioms apply in reality to make its ideas applicable to reality.

Quote:

Quote:
Our confidence in the validity of any particular empirical data is greatly enhanced by cross-correlating as many different 'channels' of sensation or instrumentation as possible.

I am quite comfortable with my position, you have not presented anything which really challenges it. I really don't care that 'academia' is not in universal agreement with it, I do not expect that it would be.

I've mentioned several problems with empiricism. The problem is that you do not even appear to understand what empiricism or metaphysics actually is. As such, you are totally ignorant of the fact that such ideas cannot be defended scientifically, such that when I present an argument, you practically ignore it and bring up matters which have nothing to do with what we are discussing. This is made apparent when you cite things like needles, dials, digital display, peer review, etc. All of this stuff is irrelevant in philosophy.

I totally understand if you think philosophy is fundamentally useless, but this is a philosophy forum.  If you are unwilling to engage in philosophical discussions, then why post here?

 

Your failure to grasp the larger context within which I place empiricism and any proposed alternatives is indicates of the limitations of your understanding.

And note that this forum is "Philosophy and Psychology", so consider that much of my argument is highly relevant to Psychology, in understanding the problems with a priori, instinctive, intuitive, internal 'knowledge'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Would any

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

Nothing will convince me that a physical reality can exist independently of a mental reality that perceives it.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Tell me then, Pais.

Paisley wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

Nothing will convince me that a physical reality can exist independently of a mental reality that perceives it.

 

Did planet earth exist before humans arrived on it or is the entire fossil record the product of a mysterious flood? What about the mental perception of trilobites? They can perceive their environment or they could not forage for food. 

And did the rest of the universe exist before Hubble went aloft or was it all just empty space waiting for us to 'think it up'?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck