All science is materialistic

[Jehanne]

[Jehanne]

I never claimed that photons were "matter"; you are putting words into my mouth/writing.

Everything on that fine man's diagram is matter, including the squiggly lines marked with lower-case Greek gamma letters, asterisks notwithstanding.

Some are photons, which are massless, but, since all photons travel, without exception, at the speed of light in a vacuum (speed varies, of course, in other substances with the frequency/wavelength), all photons have energy.

[LinuxGal]

Everything on that fine man's diagram is matter, including the squiggly lines marked with lower-case Greek gamma letters, asterisks notwithstanding.

Some are photons, which are massless, but, since all photons travel, without exception, at the speed of light in a vacuum (speed varies, of course, in other substances with the frequency/wavelength), all photons have energy.

Here's the groovy thing:

Alice says the photon has x amount of energy.

Bob says the photon has y amount of energy.

Charlie says the photon has z amount of energy.

And they're all right, because the Hermitian linear operators we call "observables" are only real for the observer, who may be moving at varying velocities with respect to each other.

[Jehanne]

Some are photons, which are massless, but, since all photons travel, without exception, at the speed of light in a vacuum (speed varies, of course, in other substances with the frequency/wavelength), all photons have energy.

Here's the groovy thing:

Alice says the photon has x amount of energy.

Bob says the photon has y amount of energy.

Charlie says the photon has z amount of energy.

And they're all right, because the Hermitian linear operators we call "observables" are only real for the observer, who may be moving at varying velocities with respect to each other.

All those energies can be measured, observed, predicted, calculated; the explanations are materialistic; in using that term, no one is claiming that photons are a form of matter.

[Angrboda]

[Jehanne]

[LinuxGal]

I think you've linked to the wrong article.

I have used the term materialistic to mean that, "the physical world is the only thing that exists and that nothing supernatural exists."  I have never used that word in any other context in this thread at least.  In this respect, Science and the scientific method is inherently materialistic, at least until clear and convincing evidence (say, the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee) would emerge to shatter that paradigm.

If a ghost can be detected, then it must interact with the natural world.  That makes it part of the natural world. If it cannot be detected, then it is indistinguishable from non-existent.  So either the supernatural does not exist, or it is indistinguishable from non-existent, which for all practical purposes is the same thing.

[Jehanne]

I have used the term materialistic to mean that, "the physical world is the only thing that exists and that nothing supernatural exists."  I have never used that word in any other context in this thread at least.  In this respect, Science and the scientific method is inherently materialistic, at least until clear and convincing evidence (say, the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee) would emerge to shatter that paradigm.

If a ghost can be detected, then it must interact with the natural world.  That makes it part of the natural world. If it cannot be detected, then it is indistinguishable from non-existent.  So either the supernatural does not exist, or it is indistinguishable from non-existent, which for all practical purposes is the same thing.

It's no different than saying that we are all Brains in Vats, or, Reality is some sort of simulation.  Until the "external" agency reveals himself/herself/itself, then we can only work with that which we have, the material world.  In making this claim, I am in no way claiming that physical matter is the sole basis of reality (fields probably are).

Consider the so-called Great Prayer Experiment which the Templeton Foundation ponied up a few million (pounds?) for a run-of-the-mill classic double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized study (which is how I made my living for over 10 years, except, we used mindless switches to randomize calls); let's say that the experiment detected a signal, even at P < 0.01.  Then what?  Has naturalism been falsified??

Well, maybe, but, there are still other materialistic explanations.  Maybe fraud?  Maybe poor experiment design or a non-representative sample?  Maybe chance, experimental error or even that God simply was not in the mood to participate??  In any case, for a positive signal, the experiment would need to be repeated with tighter controls, larger samples and better experimental designs.  In the end, though, naturalism, as an explanation, would begin to look silly, and we would all have to concede that there was something going on.

In any case, the experimenters reported a null result; at least they were honest.  Of course, they can continue to try their experiment again on a new and different sample, as long as the Templeton Foundation can pony up the monies, but, at some point, absence of evidence is really evidence of absence, and it makes sense to stop looking.  As human beings, we have other things to do, and medical doctors do have an oath and obligation to help human beings better their lives instead of trying to concoct experiments where God may or may not participate.

[polymath257]

Which, again, is to my point. The label (material, physical, etc) is irrelevant. What is important is whether the ideas are testable via observation.

You're pounding on open doors.  Non-material explanations are not testable.  Of the 20 million or so scientific papers published in the last century, cite a single one that addresses "non-material" forces.

The point is that there is nothing inherently non-scientific about a hypothesis that ghosts exist and they are not made out of atoms. That this hypothesis has actually been tested and shown to be wrong is another aspect.

There is nothing inherent in the scientific method that restricts its analysis to 'material' things. if anything, the concept of 'material' ultimately becomes *defined* as that which can be tested. But the more fundamental concept is that of testability, not of materialism.

[Hi600]

I was a science fan until 3 years ago, but COVID lockdowns have shown me how ostensible “science” can be used to subjugate people. We were forced to live under the domination of the COVID religion, just like people in the Middle Ages were forced to live under the domination of the Christian religion.


And it’s pretty clear that the WEF and their ilk wants to soon force us to live under the climate change religion.

I’m opposed to all religions, including worshipping science as a religion.