All science is materialistic

[HappySkeptic]

All science is materialistic
matter is primary, idea and god are secondary
science must dominate
do you agree

As mentioned earlier, science is methodical naturalism.  It involves observation and prediction (theory).  It therefore involves ideas.

The universe that we observe can be described by two main features - state and change.  This could alternatively be called information and events.

Matter therefore doesn't just mean lumps of stuff - it means everything from the theorized quantum fields, the information contained in them, and the quantum state changes that signify time and existence itself.

If there were another building block of reality that had observed effects (a god that does things according to supplication, a universal consciousness, an Akashic field, etc.) that would also be within the realm of science.  Anything that can be observed and isn't 100% random can be part of science.

[Angrboda]

Science is empirical, not materialistic. The idea that science is materialistic is a misnomer. If science determined that the observations supported a world made of pixie dust, that would be what it decides.

The idea that science assumes materialism is a common misconception.

[Jehanne]

Science is empirical, not materialistic. The idea that science is materialistic is a misnomer. If science determined that the observations supported a world made of pixie dust, that would be what it decides.

The idea that science assumes materialism is a common misconception.

What you are claiming is just nuts. Materialism, per Merriam-Webster, means:

a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)
scientific materialism

The United States National Academy of Sciences stated the following:

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

[Simon Moon]

All science is materialistic
matter is primary, idea and god are secondary
science must dominate
do you agree

I agree, only if you are referring to methodological materialism, not philosophical materialism.

Science works within the domain of methodological materialism.

But science makes no proclamation that the material is all that exists. That is not within the pureview of science.

I believe that the material is all that exists, but I do not claim absolute certainty.

[Objectivist]

All science is materialistic
matter is primary, idea and god are secondary
science must dominate
do you agree

No.

[polymath257]

Science is empirical, not materialistic.  The idea that science is materialistic is a misnomer.  If science determined that the observations supported a world made of pixie dust, that would be what it decides.

The idea that science assumes materialism is a common misconception.

What you are claiming is just nuts.  Materialism, per Merriam-Webster, means:

a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)
scientific materialism

The United States National Academy of Sciences stated the following:

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

And the statement says NOTHING about matter being the only or fundamental reality. it talks about the composition of matter, but not whether or not matter is fundamental.

And, in fact, even defining matter is tricky. Is light matter? Are neutrinos? They are certainly *physical*, but I think very few scientists would say that light is matter or material. I have even seen a "definition" of matter as that which is made up of first generation fermions (up and down quarks and electrons).

The essence of science is the scientific method: to test all ideas via observation, to only consider ideas that are testable (usually falsifiable) and to agree to modify or eliminate those ideas that are shown wrong via observation.

Nothing in this method *requires* 'matter' or even 'physical' aspects to be fundamental.

[LinuxGal]

The essence of science is the scientific method: to test all ideas via observation, to only consider ideas that are testable (usually falsifiable) and to agree to modify or eliminate those ideas that are shown wrong via observation.

Nothing in this method *requires* 'matter' or even 'physical' aspects to be fundamental.

A particle is fundamental when it is determined to have no constituents.

An electron, for example, is fundamental, while a proton, made of (fundamental) quarks and gluons, is composite, even though energetically a proton has no decay channel (under the Standard Model at least, if not under assorted proposed extensions to the SM).

Fundamental implies that the chain of inquiry has terminated.  The masses of fundamental particles (if they have masses) are simply brute empirical facts.  This makes for an unwieldy theory, but it's the best we have.

[Anomalocaris]

I think the word “materialistic” in the context of OP has not been well defined. Based on the poster’s other threads I don’t believe he is prepared to enhance the OP. So I think this thread is just spinning wheels.

[Jehanne]

What you are claiming is just nuts.  Materialism, per Merriam-Webster, means:


The United States National Academy of Sciences stated the following:

And the statement says NOTHING about matter being the only or fundamental reality. it talks about the composition of matter, but not whether or not matter is fundamental.

And, in fact, even defining matter is tricky. Is light matter? Are neutrinos? They are certainly *physical*, but I think very few scientists would say that light is matter or material. I have even seen a "definition" of matter as that which is made up of first generation fermions (up and down quarks and electrons).

The essence of science is the scientific method: to test all ideas via observation, to only consider ideas that are testable (usually falsifiable) and to agree to modify or eliminate those ideas that are shown wrong via observation.

Nothing in this method *requires* 'matter' or even 'physical' aspects to be fundamental.

As you and everyone else knows, by Einstein's very famous formula,


one has the mass–energy equivalence, and so, massless particles, such as photons, would have zero invariant mass.  Materialism would certainly encompass the notion of fields (of course, the basis of QFT), where at very high energies a field would produce a particle (e.g., the Higgs boson).

The Academy, by the way, does not reject scientism, stating,

Scientists, like people in other professions, hold a wide range of positions about religion and the role of supernatural forces or entities in the universe. Some adhere to a position known as scientism, which holds that the methods of science alone are sufficient for discovering everything there is to know about the universe. Others ascribe to an idea known as deism, which posits that God created all things and set the universe in motion but no longer actively directs physical phenomena. Others are theists, who believe that God actively intervenes in the world. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a prime mover or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs.

[Angrboda]

And the statement says NOTHING about matter being the only or fundamental reality. it talks about the composition of matter, but not whether or not matter is fundamental.

And, in fact, even defining matter is tricky. Is light matter? Are neutrinos? They are certainly *physical*, but I think very few scientists would say that light is matter or material. I have even seen a "definition" of matter as that which is made up of first generation fermions (up and down quarks and electrons).

The essence of science is the scientific method: to test all ideas via observation, to only consider ideas that are testable (usually falsifiable) and to agree to modify or eliminate those ideas that are shown wrong via observation.

Nothing in this method *requires* 'matter' or even 'physical' aspects to be fundamental.

As you and everyone else knows, by Einstein's very famous formula,


one has the mass–energy equivalence, and so, massless particles, such as photons, would have zero invariant mass.  Materialism would certainly encompass the notion of fields (of course, the basis of QFT), where at very high energies a field would produce a particle (e.g., the Higgs boson).

Matter and mass are not equivalent terms.