Evidence. Can't go there due to a prior committment

[The Grand Nudger]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism"

There's the quote that you are leveraging in an argument against materialism. Your alternative is quite obviously magical, you just don't like to see me use the word magic.

So, where is the patent absurdity? What does our aspiration exceeding our ability have to say about whether or not materialism is defensible position? Are we not enjoying the benefits of science in our health and lives? Show me a just-so story. I'm personally unfamiliar with Dawkins. I can't say that I have an opinion of him either way. I know he's big medicine in some circles, not mine.

Does materialism follow our observations? Yes it does. That is exactly what the material world is. The observable world. If the entirety of your point was in the final sentence you could have simply posted that. No, you posted what you did (in it's entirety) because you liked the way it sounded, you agreed with the statement. I feel that the statement is hyperbole. I'd love to see the text in full, if you'd link it. I didn't know that I needed to respond to the final sentence, since I don't have any prior commitments to anything. Provisional certainty is the name of the game. If you have evidence that exists beyond the material world then find some way to present it. If your positing that such things exist but are at a loss as to how to provide me with a reason to agree, then how did you come to this knowledge in the first place?

Summarize the points of the article for us. Things aren't "true until refuted"

[Epimethean]

But if we blink, Rhythm, reality gets all dark-like, and when we sleep, miracles can happen. This is evidence for the divine!

[Faith No More]

Regardless, instead of explaining it with god, you will either explain it away or hand out materialist promissory notes by the bushel. "One day we will know" has replaced "take it on faith" as the get out of jail free card. One day we will know many more things, yes, but chief amongst them will be how true "holy shit, there's so much we still don't know" still is.

As opposed to saying god did it, which is actually a dishonest way of saying I don't know. It does nothing to further human knowledge, but it simply says that since it is beyond our understanding of the time, I must invoke the supernatural to explain it. The only time it would be worthwhile to explain something with god would be with proof of existence of a deity, and a lack of understanding of a concept will never be proof.

[Frosty]

There's 2 concepts that are getting mixed up here.

First is that science doesn't have an agenda, or shouldn't have an agenda. It doesn't start out trying to arrive at a certain position, it takes observations and seeks to explain them. This is an overall goal of science in general.

However in order to do that, individual scientists need to make leaps, you propose a hypothesis which makes some kind of assumptions (which COULD be bias one way) and you seek to then provide evidence for that hypothesis.

The difference is that if a hypothesis is bad and doesn't fit observation then the hypothesis has to either be dropped or modified. So there can be bias around individual scientist's hypothesis to explain natural behaviour, but it doesn't mean it becomes accepted in the scientific community.

I guess you could say the direction of science is influenced by the individuals that contribute, because if lots of people all work on one problem then that problem get solved faster, but it doesn't concern the validity of the results.

[Fred]

There's 2 concepts that are getting mixed up here.

First is that science doesn't have an agenda, or shouldn't have an agenda. It doesn't start out trying to arrive at a certain position, it takes observations and seeks to explain them. This is an overall goal of science in general.

Good post, Frosty. I agree with you absolutely as science goes. But scientists often have an agenda because science can never be divorced from the larger context and using science to further your agenda is common as sand.

However in order to do that, individual scientists need to make leaps, you propose a hypothesis which makes some kind of assumptions (which COULD be bias one way) and you seek to then provide evidence for that hypothesis.

Right. And that's where the rest of the context comes in.

The difference is that if a hypothesis is bad and doesn't fit observation then the hypothesis has to either be dropped or modified.

Yup, but as the wag put it, this step usually only happens after a bunch of funerals, because that modification isn't immediate nor resistance free, and it is rarely, if ever, just a matter of "oh, look new evidence." Folks don't drop their cherished beliefs just because of a few new facts or evidence. They will fight against that as long as they can. It's the famous notion that first an idea is rejected, then ridiculed, then seen as obvious.

So there can be bias around individual scientist's hypothesis to explain natural behaviour, but it doesn't mean it becomes accepted in the scientific community.

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 guess you could say the direction of science is influenced by the individuals that contribute, because if lots of people all work on one problem then that problem get solved faster, but it doesn't concern the validity of the results.

It certainly is influenced by the individuals. It's a tool, and the tool is wielded by people however well or however poorly. It doesn't exist in a vacuum and the notion that is often floated as a given, that those individuals merely dispassionately go where the evidence leads is a lofty ideal, but it's sheer fantasy on the ground.

[Faith No More]

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.

[Fred]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd let a divine foot in the door. Provide evidence. What I won't let in the door, is any old bullshit some nutter dreams up.

[Faith No More]

Well, I'll take the long answer then.
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."

That part in bold is a great misrepresentation of why science doesn't use god to explain things....but I digress.

That quote is just a more eloquent restating of what you've already said. Without facts to back this up, it is just an opinion. What I want are the reasons, such as facts or examples, that point to it being an a priori conclusion. Could you give me something along those lines.

[Fred]

[quote='Fred' pid='176368' dateline='1315516261']
Well, I'll take the long answer then.
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."

That part in bold is a great misrepresentation of why science doesn't use god to explain things....but I digress.

Digression or not, that is not what he is saying. A foot in the door and the whole thing goes down and he knows it as well as anyone else. That's the corner you guys have painted yourselves into with this absolute stance you've taken.

God as you guys are used to dealing with is not what I am interested in here. So there's no suspicions lurking out there. I'm not one of them, and you aren't going to hear me say anything that has anything to do with their views unless you put it in. The stuff you usually argue about is not on my radar at all.

That quote is just a more eloquent restating of what you've already said. Without facts to back this up, it is just an opinion. What I want are the reasons, such as facts or examples, that point to it being an a priori conclusion. Could you give me something along those lines.

You are looking for examples of materialism being an a priori conclusion? They are littered all over this board and any other board where the topic comes up. It's a given that "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for __," whether the blank is God, mind being non-reducible to brain function, or anything that isn't in line with the materialist view. That's an a priori stance right there, and the only interest anyone seems to have in any evidence is to see how quickly it can be dismissed. "No, that's no good, give me more" is the only club you guys have in the bag.

Hell, look at the way I get responded to just by positing the thesis that the evidence claim is unsound. Instead of just letting me lay out my case so you can knock it down or not of it's own weight, its been a blizzard of obfuscation and bitching that I'm not getting to the point. That I'm not is true, but the reason I'm not is because you guys won't let me. Minds are made up and challenges to that notion are summarily rejected as a starting point and then it's on to ad hominem and stir.

I haven't been able to get to your other post where you started to pick up the trail nicely, so I'm hoping at least you and a few others might drop the a priori bit and actually investigate what I have to say instead of merely castigate it out of hand. That smacks of fear to have one's views challenged on their merit.