0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .
In short :You need to go through a major meta-paradigm shift to change your mind in the face of evidence
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442477#msg442477 date=1413627978]Regarding the OP - there's no bombshell there, it's just the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper.
Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.
Oh, and while not everyone agrees that Popperian falsifiability is the last word, it certainly makes ID pseudoscience too.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442441#msg442441 date=1413579095]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/10/2014 20:41:37Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least . Well, that's too bad.But, you can't assume that because someone does not agree with you or the author you have excerpted, they have not read it, or do not understand it, particularly if they take the time to explain why they do not agree.
The format of the argument in the Meyer excerpt is essentially the same as yours - you don't believe materialist mechanisms can account for everything, but offer nothing of substance as an alternative. Since you've read his book, perhaps you can tell me, how many chapters are devoted to what conventional evolutionary theory does not explain, and how many chapters are actually about intelligent design itself, who or what this designer is, how it interacts with physical matter, DNA, cells, etc., what experiments might provide more insight into the process, how or why certain organisms come into existence but not others, or take the morphological forms that they do, and so on. Those are the excerpts I'd really be interested in looking at.
ps. Does it not bother you in the least that none of the phenomena you have mentioned, psi, NDE, psychosomatic illness, consciousness, etc has ever been explained in any detail, "cannot be accounted for" by a non-material mechanism, either? How long do you intend to cling to your belief without evidence? I believe that is called "faith."
"Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way."
Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.
Cheryl : Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism."
There is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ? Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442504#msg442504 date=1413649246]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 18/10/2014 16:24:06 "Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way."I'm fine with that. The "influence" that is "detectable" is whats known as evidence.
Quote Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.This statement would seem to be more problematic for you than helpful. If some mechanism or new force was found to be responsible for psi, and could be "detectable" - verifiable - it would no longer be considered supernatural, but another ashttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Themes/naksci3/images/bbc/bold.gifpect of the natural world, no different than say, the discovery of electromagnetism.
The sticking point, though, is that all of our means for "detecting" and verifying tend to be material in nature - observation by people or instruments, the effects of the phenomena on other physical things, or the effects of different physical variables on the phenomena being studied.
Secondly, "detectable", does not mean proof by process of elimination, which is generally what psi experiments at their most convincing rely on, and never get beyond. "There is no way we can think of that this person could have access to that information, so it must be.....esp, or out of body consciousness, or remote viewing."Process of elimination is not the same as detection or demonstrating a mechanism.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442507#msg442507 date=1413650734]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 18/10/2014 17:30:42Cheryl : Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism."I didn't skip or ignore that passage. The author simply says there is no bias for or against these things, providing there is evidence, a detectable influence, not just a theory or an idea about it, which is exactly what I've been saying.
QuoteThere is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ? Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ? I assumed the excerpt about naturalism was the one you wanted to discuss and put forth for a reason, so those were the remarks I addressed. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "beyond nature" what exactly that refers to, so unless you can be a little clearer or specific about what that even is, there is not much I can say about it.
Well, you seem to have some sort of argument from ignorance thought pattern of some sort , Cheryl : I am tired of repeating that fact :Non-materialist science is in fact all about an overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting its claims and theories, models .... and all about detecting , albeit indireclty, the influence of consciousness as a key component of reality on matter brain and body , and much more , through psi-phenomena , through the impact of beliefs and expactations on body brain and biology genes ... via thousands of experiments and documented cases ...
And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ? Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ? Who says then thus that science has to be materialist all this time and counting , or that science has to require materialism , like that rationalwiki link of yours said , the more when we see that materialism has been challenged and refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence ? In short :Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only material processes then ? Think about that then .
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442605#msg442605 date=1413748089]At any rate, thanks for providing me with an activity to pass the time during my convalescence.
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make? It would just become another aspect of the natural world and no longer mysterious or magical, like electromagnetism, and no more amazing than my cell phone (which actually, still amazes me.)
If it were proven that fairies or angels existed, why should I find them more interesting or awe inspiring than birds or octopi?
I can't help but think in the end, all this fervent pursuit and debate about a post material paradigm shift isn't about science at all. It's a desperate search for a God who will protect, and the possibility of an afterlife. That is the motive that drives the whole anti-materialist quest
Otherwise, they wouldn't bother, since they don't seem all that interested in any kind of science in the first place.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442560#msg442560 date=1413679307]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 18/10/2014 18:23:08In short :Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only material processes then ? Think about that then .No one says it.
In short :Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only material processes then ? Think about that then .
But it's interesting that some how in 80 something pages and claims of "overwhelming evidence," we have never taken the time to look closely at anyone of these studies or examples. And it seems, that when we talk specifically about a particular area, like macroevolution, and you are provided with facts or examples that contradict your claims, you ignore them or change the subject to physics. When physics is discussed (as with the lengthy Stapp debate or discussions about wave function collapse) and you are again backed into into a corner, you switch topics yet again, without any attempt to address the other person's comments or support what you've said earlier.
Then many posts later, you repeat the same claims over as if they were never addressed.
You began this thread with the announcement that important scientists were rejecting materialism in great numbers. If true, they seem a bit slow out of the gate in engaging in any research along those lines or producing any new findings. But if they do, I'm willing to take a look at it.
My sincere apologies for being so rude to you the last times when we interacted with each other on this forum .I am not the same man i used to be, so.How are you , man ? Fine, i hope .)
Would you care to elaborate on that , please ? What's so pseudo-scientific about non-materialist science then ? Is it just because it refutes materialism and its "scientific world view " ,and hence proposes a new , unprecedented and radical meta-paradigm shift in science ?
QuoteLet me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.That's an argument from ignorance : check out the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site at least then to figure that out for yourself .
... See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .
Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ?
Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection ? He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?