Religious Fallacy

On July 06 2009 03:05 PH wrote:

On July 05 2009 21:25 Vedic wrote:

On July 05 2009 16:59 PH wrote:
Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?

What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.

I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.

If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.

However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html

Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.

Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.

No matter what happens, science being unable to provide an answer does not prove anything aside from the fact that the universe is not set up in a way that facilitates the ability to grasp it's finer details. There is no faith in what I said - you simply didn't read it properly. I most specifically said that it is quite likely that we will figure it out in the future, but even if we don't, the answer will ALWAYS remain "we don't know" until we do.

Please, cite the people with physics doctorates you have spoken to, and the papers they have written. I'd very much like to see any sort of support for what you are saying circulating anywhere outside of the "intelligent design" community.

Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.

I already know the answer, and it is that you can not. You can't use a physical test against something that isn't physical, so you will never be able to transition from wild philosophical assumption to actual science. Not now, not later, not ever. On the flip side, every single test you ever do is a testament to the fact that the physical realm does indeed exist.

lol...no, I'm done with you. You're not understanding what I'm saying, you're not properly understanding what we're talking about now, and yes, your faith that science and physicalism holds all the answers, just that we don't know them yet (or are capable of knowing them), in my opinion parallels religious faith.

Talking to you is like talking to an evangelist that relies on the same circular argument. Yes, by the way, you have been repeating the same circular argument over and over again. "Science is capable of testing all there is in the universe concretely, so anything that science can't test doesn't exist."

That's great...but I deny your premise. I deny that science is the end all be all, and I deny that just because it isn't physical, it doesn't exist.

I have written papers defending physicalism before, and just like the papers I wrote supporting phenomenalism, there were debatable and presumptuous premises that had to be made that any supporter of the opposition would jump on. There is a reason why it is still an active area of discussion today. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an undergrad dumb enough to try to debate this over the damn internet.

I doubt you even glanced at that paper I linked you to...no...something written by a respected philosopher doesn't concern you, does it? He's not a man of science...he dares to think outside the box, after all. You challenge me to give you information about the professor at my school and to somehow quote something he said in a lecture a year ago, and you don't even seem to have any respect for, nor put any stock into the discipline of philosophy...it's not even worth keeping this up with you.

Show nested quote +

That's all fair and fairly true, I think. I used that to allow for some kind of base to further my points off of, and isn't really an end-all example. After all, it's a far cry from being able to theorize and make guesses and to be able to actually test things out...

PH, I'm interested in this idea. Apart from the big bang stuff are there any other physicalist' areas that would indicate that phenomenalism is a valid viewpoint? I'm not trolling, I'm nearly post-grad physics and philosophy greatly interests me.

Just from reading what you've posted before (I'm going to read Nagel, that looks awesome) it looks like phenomenalism is creating a dichotomy between the physical and non-physical world - which is fine - but what exists outside of the physical world? I'm going to go with "abstract ideas". You could possibly argue the land of platonia is the realm of the phenomalistic, but I think platonia only contains ideas logically consistent with the physical world. Any idea, even if false, would be a valid "object" outside the physical world. Dreams possibly? Actually that's very likely. Vedic - ever been daydreaming then snapped back into physical reality?

Vedic if you read this you'll probably argue that things such as "dreams" and "abstract ideas" leave a physical footprint - ie you can wack a person inside of an MRI scanner and watch their brain work while they're dreaming or track physiological reactions to "emotions" and when people are thinking abstractly - but what you're missing here is that for you; for yourself it is impossible to differentiate between reality and dreamstates most of the time. And since you do not occupy more than one mind at a time the body of scientific knowledge and the scientific method can't be properly applied by you to yourself when you're dreaming.

I apologize. Philosophy is icky and generally doesn't put bread on the table.

Religious Fallacy - Page 7

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming