tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post863606135215426752..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Paralogists and ImmaterialismGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-27543905423504902782021-05-02T02:45:20.131-07:002021-05-02T02:45:20.131-07:00Hi Glenn, I'm not sure how to respond to this....Hi Glenn, I'm not sure how to respond to this. <br /><br />a) You make an unsubstantiated assertion.<br /><br />b) An unsubstantiated assertion moreover that is transparently false.<br /><br />This is the problem with the world. <br /><br />Berkeley's metaphysic rejects physical causation altogether, only mental causation exists. There is no need to posit physical causation at all. You are just simply not correct and I'm not wasting any more of my time with you. <br /><br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-66093601496065594732021-05-01T15:44:36.708-07:002021-05-01T15:44:36.708-07:00Ian:
Sorry, but your statement that "science...Ian:<br /><br />Sorry, but your statement that "science does not depend on our metaphysical presuppositions" is false. For instance, folks cannot be scientists unless they assume "there are causes for all effects." That is a metaphysical presupposition because it goes "beyond physics." We will never be able to completely prove that assumption, but without it, we could not do science.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-22807254253038853962021-04-14T00:25:43.699-07:002021-04-14T00:25:43.699-07:00Thanks for your response. I mostly had in mind phy...Thanks for your response. I mostly had in mind physics, which other sciences are supposed to be able to be reduced to.<br /><br />Science works. Hence, if immaterialism is correct, then science cannot depend on there existing a material world. More generally, science does not depend on our metaphysical presuppositions. I have written a short blog piece on Berkeley's immaterialism (also called subjective idealism) <br /><br />http://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-very-brief-introduction-to-subjective.htmlIan Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-14258648729840517472021-04-13T20:14:54.838-07:002021-04-13T20:14:54.838-07:00Thanks Ian:
I mostly agree, but have a problem wi...Thanks Ian:<br /><br />I mostly agree, but have a problem with your statement: "Also science certainly doesn't depend on materialism being true. It doesn't even depend on there existing a material world at all. It depends on reality evolving according to regularities (maybe not even exceptionless regularities), and the success of science depends on these regularities being of such a character that they can be mathematically described."<br /><br />[GB: I find your first sentence to be quite absurd. I don't know what could be studied if there wasn't a material world. You seem to be ignoring matter and overemphasizing motion. Perhaps that is why you think there would be no science without math. That is not true. For instance, we do earth science all the time without requiring mathematics. We often use math, but it is not always necessary. Many other scientific disciplines are like that. Math is wonderful, but it is not a panacea, with relativity and cosmogony being the best examples of its failures.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-54065457930538650282021-04-13T02:30:30.955-07:002021-04-13T02:30:30.955-07:00You say that materialism means:
"The ext...You say that materialism means:<br /><br /> "The external world exists after the observer does not"<br /><br />Obviously dualists hold this too, and arguably even immaterialists do as well depending how one defines "external world". It's not as if immaterialists think that reality simply disappears when one dies.<br /><br />It's also worth noting that modern thinking holds that colours, odours, sounds and all other qualitative features are held to be entirely absent from the external world. This leaves the material consciousness-independent world a bare skeletal denuded abstraction characterised entirely by structure, a far cry from what our perceptions tell us and what common-sense holds. Immaterialism draws no such distinction between these so-called "secondary qualities", and the "primary qualities" i.e the quantifiable/measurable aspects of reality. So, far from the commonsensical position that people might imagine materialism to be, it is nothing of the sort.<br /><br />Also science certainly doesn't depend on materialism being true. It doesn't even depend on there existing a material world at all. It depends on reality evolving according to regularities (maybe not even exceptionless regularities), and the success of science depends on these regularities being of such a character that they can be mathematically described.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.com