Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[The Grand Nudger]

WTF are you talking about?  Why even quote me?  Theres no reason for me to repeat myself a third time.  You're not going to get anything you didn't get the other two.  If you think that science is somehow in the business of providing circular reasoning...I don't have the patience to prove to you..as I keep saying, that science works and can be trusted.  But why, then, even ask to be shown any science, about anything, whatsoever?  

I've not said that science using circular reasoning.  I'm saying that YOU do.

Bcause I can;t -help- but give you a demonstration of materialism with -any- piece of science about -anything-?  That's what you think circular reasoning is?  

I've not said science is invalid, I've said that your abuse of science as an explanation, despite your complete unwillingness to attempt to use it to support your philosophical position, is invalid.

My philosophical position that stuff is made of matter...which science cannot but demonstrate, as it contains no other kind of explanation......? Whether or not you think that science demonstrates that philosophical position..is an issue of whether or not you think science works...and can be trusted.

Science is just the process of observation, categorization, experimentation, and so on.  It is the art of learning things in a particularly useful way.  But you are conflating the PROCESS of science, which is very useful, with the philosophical predilections of some (hypothetical and as-yet unquoted) scientists, which are not really any better guesses than anyone else's.  Science does not "arrive at" a material world view, nor is a particular belief about reality required-- though certainly some scientists, including many of the greats of the 20th century, held views that they were not capable of letting go when evidence showed their particular views about materiality to be incorrect.

No, Benny, I'm not.   Fundamental to science, is methodological materialism.  There is literally -nothing- in science, that -isn't- a material explanation.  If I refer to any piece of science, to demonstrate anything, it will invariably be a material demonstration of whatever that thing is...because science contains nothing else. If you want some demonstration or explanation of something "other than materialist" ...you'll have to go somewhere other than science.

If reality consists of nothing more than ideas, or fairies dancing in space, or the Mind of God, it may be that science will arrive eventually at that understanding.  So no, I disagree that science and a materialist world view are necessarily connected at the hip-- though for some scientists they are.

If if if,if what...if I'm wrong I'm wrong? No shit....another know nothing objection to everything. Let's see some evidence?  How else am I supposed to know whether or not your propositions are sound? It's not an issue of your agreement, it's not a debate, it's not down to each individual scientist to decide......... science self describes and self limits as such. Ask for science, you will get a necessarily materialist something, everytime, about everything. Why do you think that people who believe in the immaterial bunch their panties up over science in the first place? Because it doesn't -contain- any of that, it doesn't reference any of that, and it doesn't even make the assumption. What else do -you- expect to get from science, other than a materialist explanation?