(September 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "You don't know what you don't know" is not an argument against or refutation -of- materialism, nor does it advance the position of idealism a single millimeter.I'm not saying that to refute materialism. I'm using it to say there cannot be any sensible process by which even scientific inquiry can establish that materialism is foundational to reality. If you want to use the exact same argument about idealism, then I'd agree, but I've already explained why I would take idealism as the default position anyway.
Quote: A requirement of full knowledge is ridiculous and unreasonable. Further, it's invocation doesn't have the ability to make or support the comments you've offered. I agree wholeheartedly that there is currently no way to prove either metaphysical claim. This does not, however, level the ground between the two claims.I fully agree, but I doubt that means the same to you as it does to me.
Quote: You've -made- assumptions in the arguments you've offered, both consciously and inadvertently. Can you dismiss the power of evidence (or the assumptions upon which the evidence rests) while simultaneously pointing to it -as- evidence (or the inaccuracy of the assumptions of which it rests)?Yes. I know that the materialist position relies on evidence, and I'm showing that that foundation is non sequitur. The observations you make do not, and cannot, arrive at a materialist world view, unless you've already assumed that your observations say more than they do. It's a toxic term, but I guess I have to float it here: begging the question.
