(September 8, 2011 at 9:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're right, the people who developed the scientific method, and many of those in the sciences today were not and are not exclusively materialists. It is the product of their efforts however, and not their personal opinions, that leave us with no reason to believe in the supernatural. It could have gone the other way, but it didn't.

I am not now or ever speaking of supernatural anything. Chuck it out, as it's not part of the discussion in any way.

Ah excellent, something entirely natural. That should be easy to come up with evidence for shouldn't it?

(September 8, 2011 at 10:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ah excellent, something entirely natural. That should be easy to come up with evidence for shouldn't it?

What you said about worth of response in that other post. Cheer from the sidelines.

(September 8, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How dare you try to oppress him Faith

This is you whingeing like a baby Rhythm. Maybe you'll be writing a leaving thread soon?

Grow up and take what you give out. Both of you.

Is that directed at me?

Yes FNM. Did I misjudge you? (honest question)

Fred, I've read two of your threads now, and a question came to mind. What exactly do you think science is?

Fred does not think science is.

That's a head slap moment right there.

(September 9, 2011 at 7:44 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Fred, I've read two of your threads now, and a question came to mind. What exactly do you think science is?

Not sure I'm following you here, Leo. Have I given the impression that I think it is anything different than the application of the scientific method to the whatever is being studied or experimented upon?

If so, my bad, but that's what I think science: application of the scientific method. May I ask what you think it is?

---

(September 8, 2011 at 9:58 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(September 8, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Fred Wrote:

---

(September 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(September 8, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Fred Wrote: You are looking for examples of materialism being an a priori conclusion? They are littered all over this board and any other board where the topic comes up. It's a given that "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for __," whether the blank is God, mind being non-reducible to brain function, or anything that isn't in line with the materialist view. That's an a priori stance right there, and the only interest anyone seems to have in any evidence is to see how quickly it can be dismissed.

Okay, let me see if I understand. This evidence is dismissed because it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny,

The evidence is dismissed, period. Do you think everybody doing science is a materialist? You got the pdf for the application?

Quote:but the scientific method uses materialism as its basis for measurement.

Do the horse and the cart know about this switch in plans? Also, did you really just try to lay an exclusivity claim to the scientific method? What brass. Is this one of those things where we are going to hear that atheists invented science or something?

Materialism is a philosophy laid on top of science. This merge you guys are trying pull off is amusing but scary.

Quote:Therefore, the evidence against materialism is dismissed because it doesn't meet the standards of materialism. Is that it?

Uh, no. The evidence is dismissed because it doesn't fit your narrow view. The folks that developed the scientific method weren't exclusively materialists and it's hardly like you guys are the only game in town. Others get to use the same gear, too.

---

No need to be a dick. I was just trying to understand you, not making any claims. This discussion will go a lot more easily when you drop the pretentious attitude.

I'm sorry you think I was being a dick, FNM. Could you please tell me what part of my response led you to that conclusion? You said you thought the scientific method was based on the principles of materialism and I said this wasn't so. You said all evidence was kicked aside because it didn't meet scientific standards, and I disagreed that this was the case and added that people who aren't materialists are also doing science using the same methods.

Am I being a dick because of what I said or is it with how I said it? If it's the former, I don't know what to say. If it''s the latter, I also don't know what to say because given the context of the stuff being lobbed my way, it's hard to imagine how I've crossed any line, so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Can you clarify?