I think we can probably continue our discussion here. Before we go on, I would like to make sure our vocabulary is relatively similar.
In the video you use the word "Naturalism". I am honestly not extremely familiar with the term, every philosophy class I have taken so far has used the word Materialism. (I have only taken one intro, Metaphysics, and Epistemology, so I probably just have not been exposed.) I assume both these words have about the same meaning, but I would prefer to use . . .
Second, let me reiterate your points about methodological Materialism and Philosophic Materialism so that I am also sure I understand you know what you mean.
(philosophical) materialism - belief that exists is the material (methodological) materialism - there could be super natural/dualist agents, but they are completely separate from the material world.
Now, if this is true, and Science holds the belief of Methodological Materialism, then why . . .
does science not presuppose materialism? It seems to me that every time you said, "assume a natural explanation", you were admitting to that presupposition of materialism.
Of course, I understand that Science has no statement of whether or not that the Super Natural actually exists. However, if two worlds do not interact you may as well be a materialist, because at this point there is something that IS that cannot be KNOWN. And that does not make very much sense.
why you would make a distinction that science is methodological rather than philosophical. However, at that point there is no way Science can have a position other than materialism, because as you said, "You assume that no super natural agencies are at work . . . There could be deities. There could be spirits and everything out there, but they don't enter into the realm we are looking at."
This is a position of Materialism, because I think you would probably also agree that what IS, is . . .
KNOWABLE. If there is something that IS and it is not KNOWABLE then how can Science begin to function as a system of knowledge? I don't think Science would be able to deny that much and still function as a source of knowledge.
I understand you don't need to be strictly a materialist to practice science, but you do need to work within the framework of materialism.
Woot I got mentioned!! ahem :> Thanks, how I usually pronounce it is, say the first two letters then end it normally so eye dee uts. I just liked how the spelliing works well with their initials. I've seen a few others use it too sort of fits what they are.
Thanks, I just might. It is an area of interest of mine. I appreciate your comment, and will think about more philo of science concepts to talk about.
I think you need to separate forensics with theory of evolution. These too are far different. Forensics i natural process. TOE is fairy tales. Can you give me one proof of evolution theory?
One proof? No proofs in science, that is for mathematics. One piece of solid, irrefutable evidence? ERV's. the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, homology, molecular (non genetic) biology, nested hierarchies....
I think we can probably continue our discussion here. Before we go on, I would like to make sure our vocabulary is relatively similar.
In the video you use the word "Naturalism". I am honestly not extremely familiar with the term, every philosophy class I have taken so far has used the word Materialism. (I have only taken one intro, Metaphysics, and Epistemology, so I probably just have not been exposed.) I assume both these words have about the same meaning, but I would prefer to use . . .
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Materialism if that is alright with you.
Second, let me reiterate your points about methodological Materialism and Philosophic Materialism so that I am also sure I understand you know what you mean.
(philosophical) materialism - belief that exists is the material (methodological) materialism - there could be super natural/dualist agents, but they are completely separate from the material world.
Now, if this is true, and Science holds the belief of Methodological Materialism, then why . . .
insidetrip101 2 years ago
does science not presuppose materialism? It seems to me that every time you said, "assume a natural explanation", you were admitting to that presupposition of materialism.
Of course, I understand that Science has no statement of whether or not that the Super Natural actually exists. However, if two worlds do not interact you may as well be a materialist, because at this point there is something that IS that cannot be KNOWN. And that does not make very much sense.
In short, I understand . . .
insidetrip101 2 years ago
why you would make a distinction that science is methodological rather than philosophical. However, at that point there is no way Science can have a position other than materialism, because as you said, "You assume that no super natural agencies are at work . . . There could be deities. There could be spirits and everything out there, but they don't enter into the realm we are looking at."
This is a position of Materialism, because I think you would probably also agree that what IS, is . . .
insidetrip101 2 years ago
KNOWABLE. If there is something that IS and it is not KNOWABLE then how can Science begin to function as a system of knowledge? I don't think Science would be able to deny that much and still function as a source of knowledge.
I understand you don't need to be strictly a materialist to practice science, but you do need to work within the framework of materialism.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Sorry for so many comments <.< I hope you don't mind reading. ^.^
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Woot I got mentioned!! ahem :> Thanks, how I usually pronounce it is, say the first two letters then end it normally so eye dee uts. I just liked how the spelliing works well with their initials. I've seen a few others use it too sort of fits what they are.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
Nice video.
Hope you will do more on the philosophy of science.
BarryLeder 3 years ago
Thanks, I just might. It is an area of interest of mine. I appreciate your comment, and will think about more philo of science concepts to talk about.
LithodidMan 3 years ago
I think you need to separate forensics with theory of evolution. These too are far different. Forensics i natural process. TOE is fairy tales. Can you give me one proof of evolution theory?
et00et 2 years ago
One proof? No proofs in science, that is for mathematics. One piece of solid, irrefutable evidence? ERV's. the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, homology, molecular (non genetic) biology, nested hierarchies....
LithodidMan 2 years ago
@LithodidMan what is that skull behind you with the massive teeth? a croc?
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef The one right behind me is an American alligator, the one on the same shelf to the far left is an African lion.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan thanks, are they real or replicas?
blazereef 1 year ago