All science is materialistic

[Jehanne]

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.

All scientists that I have read (and, I think that the National Academies is of this opinion, also), is that scientific materialism is a useful, productive paradigm, one that is falsifiable with scientism being a completely acceptable philosophy (it was listed first in their laundry list -- scientism, deism, theism).  Yes, the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, but, a "failed hypothesis".  Ditto for ghosts, the paranormal, the supernatural, fairies, pixies, Sasquatch, Creationism, OBEs, NDEs, Intelligent Design, etc.  When investigators have been able to conduct experiments (in the case of OBEs and NDEs, tests of veridicality in the remote viewing of concealed objects), they have all failed, without exception.  As time & funding are both limited, investigators who wish to continue these pursuits need, in my opinion, to secure their own funding.  On the other hand, a single, repeatable test of veridical experience (say, in some patient who has a myocardial infarction and who leaves their body to read the contents of some hidden LED screen and then who conveys that information upon resuscitation) would completely shatter the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm, and scientific materialism would come crashing down; well, that's at least my view.

As so, I, as a layperson, would claim that Science and the scientific method is intrinsically materialistic, if only as a paradigm, one that could, hypothetically, be falsified, but, at the same time I do not think that such is a reasonable and worthwhile pursuit in trying to falsify it.  As with evolution, too much evidence runs in favor of materialism; at a minimum, it is the horse to beat, and likely, the only one on the racetrack.

[polymath257]

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.

All scientists that I have read (and, I think that the National Academies is of this opinion, also), is that scientific materialism is a useful, productive paradigm, one that is falsifiable with scientism being a completely acceptable philosophy (it was listed first in their laundry list -- scientism, deism, theism).  Yes, the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, but, a "failed hypothesis".  Ditto for ghosts, the paranormal, the supernatural, fairies, pixies, Sasquatch, Creationism, OBEs, NDEs, Intelligent Design, etc.  When investigators have been able to conduct experiments (in the case of OBEs and NDEs, tests of veridicality in the remote viewing of concealed objects), they have all failed, without exception.  As time & funding are both limited, investigators who wish to continue these pursuits need, in my opinion, to secure their own funding.  On the other hand, a single, repeatable test of veridical experience (say, in some patient who has a myocardial infarction and who leaves their body to read the contents of some hidden LED screen and then who conveys that information upon resuscitation) would completely shatter the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm, and scientific materialism would come crashing down; well, that's at least my view.

As so, I, as a layperson, would claim that Science and the scientific method is intrinsically materialistic, if only as a paradigm, one that could, hypothetically, be falsified, but, at the same time I do not think that such is a reasonable and worthwhile pursuit in trying to falsify it.  As with evolution, too much evidence runs in favor of materialism; at a minimum, it is the horse to beat, and likely, the only one on the racetrack.

And I would agree with this. The evidence points to materialism, if for no other reason that 'materialism' is defined to be that which can be addressed by the scientific method.

[polymath257]

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.

All scientists that I have read (and, I think that the National Academies is of this opinion, also), is that scientific materialism is a useful, productive paradigm, one that is falsifiable with scientism being a completely acceptable philosophy (it was listed first in their laundry list -- scientism, deism, theism).  Yes, the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, but, a "failed hypothesis".  Ditto for ghosts, the paranormal, the supernatural, fairies, pixies, Sasquatch, Creationism, OBEs, NDEs, Intelligent Design, etc.  When investigators have been able to conduct experiments (in the case of OBEs and NDEs, tests of veridicality in the remote viewing of concealed objects), they have all failed, without exception.  As time & funding are both limited, investigators who wish to continue these pursuits need, in my opinion, to secure their own funding.  On the other hand, a single, repeatable test of veridical experience (say, in some patient who has a myocardial infarction and who leaves their body to read the contents of some hidden LED screen and then who conveys that information upon resuscitation) would completely shatter the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm, and scientific materialism would come crashing down; well, that's at least my view.

As so, I, as a layperson, would claim that Science and the scientific method is intrinsically materialistic, if only as a paradigm, one that could, hypothetically, be falsified, but, at the same time I do not think that such is a reasonable and worthwhile pursuit in trying to falsify it.  As with evolution, too much evidence runs in favor of materialism; at a minimum, it is the horse to beat, and likely, the only one on the racetrack.

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.

[Jehanne]

All scientists that I have read (and, I think that the National Academies is of this opinion, also), is that scientific materialism is a useful, productive paradigm, one that is falsifiable with scientism being a completely acceptable philosophy (it was listed first in their laundry list -- scientism, deism, theism).  Yes, the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, but, a "failed hypothesis".  Ditto for ghosts, the paranormal, the supernatural, fairies, pixies, Sasquatch, Creationism, OBEs, NDEs, Intelligent Design, etc.  When investigators have been able to conduct experiments (in the case of OBEs and NDEs, tests of veridicality in the remote viewing of concealed objects), they have all failed, without exception.  As time & funding are both limited, investigators who wish to continue these pursuits need, in my opinion, to secure their own funding.  On the other hand, a single, repeatable test of veridical experience (say, in some patient who has a myocardial infarction and who leaves their body to read the contents of some hidden LED screen and then who conveys that information upon resuscitation) would completely shatter the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm, and scientific materialism would come crashing down; well, that's at least my view.

As so, I, as a layperson, would claim that Science and the scientific method is intrinsically materialistic, if only as a paradigm, one that could, hypothetically, be falsified, but, at the same time I do not think that such is a reasonable and worthwhile pursuit in trying to falsify it.  As with evolution, too much evidence runs in favor of materialism; at a minimum, it is the horse to beat, and likely, the only one on the racetrack.

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[Jehanne]

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.

In my opinion, Physicalism is a statement that there are four fundamental forces (noting the unification of the electroweak), and nothing more at present, except, perhaps, a fifth fundamental force that could account for Dark Energy. If any additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, they will someday be observed and modeled, and if they are never observed, it is almost surely due to the fact that they do not exist.

[polymath257]

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.

In my opinion, Physicalism is a statement that there are four fundamental forces (noting the unification of the electroweak), and nothing more at present, except, perhaps, a fifth fundamental force that could account for Dark Energy.  If any additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, they will someday be observed and modeled, and if they are never observed, it is almost surely due to the fact that they do not exist.

So physicalism is simply the scientific consensus at the time and not an overarching viewpoint?

How would we tell if there is another force? If we create a model with such a force and it is tested and verified by observation, does it then become physical? If supersymmetry is a thing, that would imply many other 'forces' in the form of bosons corresponding to known fermions. I would hate to say such speculation is un-scientific merely because it postulates more forces.

I'd also point out that this has a similar problem to materialism. Where materialism was focused on the fermions (matter), this seems to be too focused on the bosons (forces).

Once again, the relevant criterion seems to be testability.

[Jehanne]

In my opinion, Physicalism is a statement that there are four fundamental forces (noting the unification of the electroweak), and nothing more at present, except, perhaps, a fifth fundamental force that could account for Dark Energy.  If any additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, they will someday be observed and modeled, and if they are never observed, it is almost surely due to the fact that they do not exist.

So physicalism is simply the scientific consensus at the time and not an overarching viewpoint?

How would we tell if there is another force? If we create a model with such a force and it is tested and verified by observation, does it then become physical? If supersymmetry is a thing, that would imply many other 'forces' in the form of bosons corresponding to known fermions. I would hate to say such speculation is un-scientific merely because it postulates more forces.

I'd also point out that this has a similar problem to materialism. Where materialism was focused on the fermions (matter), this seems to be too focused on the bosons (forces).

Once again, the relevant criterion seems to be testability.

Something like Dark Energy (or even Dark Matter) may not be testable (in the sense that the force can be manipulated in the LHC or its successors) but only observable, say, in its effects. It may be, say, in the realm of the Multiverse (if such exists) that additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, and even though they will never be observed, perhaps, they could be described, say, by some String Theory model. But, alas, it may be impossible to distinguish one theoretical model from a competing one, as both may be mathematically coherent, yet where one is right but the other wrong. We will just never know.

A phenomenon that is non-physical is magical; such phenomenon, if they exist, can certainly be observed (e.g., the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee) but they cannot be modeled.

[Angrboda]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

― Arthur C. Clarke

[Jehanne]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

― Arthur C. Clarke

I would say that Arthur C. Clarke was "not even wrong". For instance, in Chemistry, there are spin-forbidden reactions, which means that these reactions are impossible. It's a pithy quote; futurists love it, but, it's Ignorance on Parade.