(September 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:(September 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm)Fred Wrote: And it doesn't mean that it isn't accepted, either. And the majority of the scientific community has certainly put their chips down on the side of materialism as an a priori conclusion.
I'd like you explain further why you think that materialism is an a priori conclusion.
The short answer is because of the historical and sociological context from which is sprung. That's what I was attempting to get into in the Old Wine post.
The key is in Lewontin's infamous quote:
"We take the side of science . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Hard to put it any better than that, which is why I respect Lewontin so much. I don't agree with all he says, but he says a lot I think is right on the money.
