(January 1, 2023 at 7:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(January 1, 2023 at 6:23 pm)polymath257 Wrote: One of my basic problems is that I don't know what it means to be a 'methodological materialist'.
As a simple example, are electromagnetic waves 'material'? If so, why?
Are neutrinos 'material'? If so, how?
Is dark matter 'material'? If so, how?
Is a curvature of spacetime 'material' If so, how?
Is a quantum wave function 'material'? if so, how?
My point is that 'materialism' is a rather vague concept that has very little actual use in determining whether a hypothesis is scientifically supportable. Instead, the notion of testability via observation is very clear and precise and lets us eliminate many ideas as useless for explanation.
Maybe physicalism would be a better term.
Yes, it would. But it is still rather vague. What, precisely, does it mean to say something is physical?
I would still argue that testability via observation is a far better criterion.