Methodological Naturalism (Materialism)

[Cerebrum123]

I realize that I am rarely serious in my interactions with you--this is one of those times.

Obviously you disagree with the mainstream definition of science, because the mainstream definition specifically acknowledges that it is not competent to discern anything about the existence or nature of possible spiritual entities. How would you define science so that it is competent to discern spiritual things?

If that is true, then why are people so often trying to prove the existence of ghosts, and the like, using scientific equipment? Just wondering is all.

[phank]

If that is true, then why are people so often trying to prove the existence of ghosts, and the like, using scientific equipment? Just wondering is all.

Because of the hypothesis that at least some of such things are not spiritual or supernatural at all, they are evidence of physical phenomena not understood. People are not trying to "prove the existence of ghosts", they are attempting to understand the underlying phenomena and mechanisms which other people may have perceived and interpreted as ghosts.

(I might point out that people who don't believe in ghosts, or gods, or "intelligent design", can look forever and not see any of these. The human mind is funny like that - it "fills in the blanks" in what our senses provide with our expectations, to the point where if expectations directly conflict with senses, the sensory data is unconsciously discarded to preserve the expectations.)

And sure enough, where investigations into allegations of ghosts find anything, they find perfectly pedestrian, common phenomena distorted beyond recognition by peoples' imaginations, fears, and preconceptions. Still, these investigations are valuable and important. As Asimov wrote, the most powerful words in science aren't "Eureka, I found it!" but rather "hmmm, that's funny...".

[technomage]

If that is true, then why are people so often trying to prove the existence of ghosts, and the like, using scientific equipment?

Those people who do so believe that ghosts are material phenomena--the ghosts purportedly affect electromagnetic sensors, infra-red cameras, voice and video recordings, and the like. (I happen to think it's all clap-trap, but that's beside the point.)

But this does bring up a good point on the distinction between what science can do and what it cannot. If ghosts exist, and are a purely spiritual phenomena, science is helpless to even speculate on what they are. But if they are (at least in part) material phenomena, we can then investigate the putative phenomena and at least get some idea of what is going on. Science can ONLY investigate phenomena that impinge upon the material world.

Let's take my understanding of Jorje's example: he posits that we can examine an item and infer whether or no the item was created by natural events, or created by a designer. It sounds good, at first blush (there are problems with it, which I will explain later if desired), but even here there are problems.

Suppose we came upon a life form that evolution could not account for in any way, shape, means, or form. The obvious conclusion, by Jorje's thinking, is that the life form was deliberately designed, and he infers that there must be a Creator. But what can science tell us about the creator? Nothing--because it is not science that let to that conclusion, it is Jorje's extra-scientific belief.

The mainstream definition of science is frequently accused of being "atheistic"--that is not true. Science is not atheistic--science is agnostic. Had a scientist been present the morning of the Resurrection (an event that, as a non-Christian, I do not believe actually occurred, but will use here for an example), he would have seen a dead human male of Jewish ancestry who died by torture. He would then have seen the dead man come to life. He could see what happened, and as a scientist he could very closely define and describe the event, but he cannot use science to tell him why it happened.

If a God exists, science is not opposed to that God--science is utterly incompetent to investigate anything about that God. Science is the wrong tool for that job.

[technomage]

And sure enough, where investigations into allegations of ghosts find anything, they find perfectly pedestrian, common phenomena distorted beyond recognition by peoples' imaginations, fears, and preconceptions.

Not always on the more recent television shows, however, those shows are "science lite," and lack the rigor required for a proper scientific investigation.

[technomage]

And sure enough, where investigations into allegations of ghosts find anything, they find perfectly pedestrian, common phenomena distorted beyond recognition by peoples' imaginations, fears, and preconceptions.

Not always on the more recent television shows, however, those shows are "science lite," and lack the rigor required for a proper scientific investigation.

[phank]

If a God exists, science is not opposed to that God--science is utterly incompetent to investigate anything about that God. Science is the wrong tool for that job.

Which leaves us wondering exactly what the right tool might be.

[technomage]

Which leaves us wondering exactly what the right tool might be.

I'm not certain any such tool exists--and I say that as a theist!

I believe that a deity exists. I believe this, knowing that I have no objective evidence, and that the subjective experiences I have had may be nothing more than neuron activity. It's why I don't attempt to proseletyze--even if doing so was commanded by my faith, I could not do so in good conscience.

Credo qui absurdum? Absolutely ... but I'm happy with it, and I still seem to be relatively sane in most other areas.

[phank]

I found it hard to understand whether qualia are philosopohical or neurological constructs. But the validity of philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism seems to rest on whether qualia "exist", whatever that might mean. The angels-on-pinheads philosophical disputes seem to accept that there are internal, purely subjective personal experiences or feelings (belief in gods being among them), but differ as to whether even the most intensely subjective experiences have underlying neurological bases.

And so "qualia" are defined, it seems to me, as internal mental states so subjective they "exist" entirely non-materially, such that patterns of neural firings (such as dreams) are regarded as material so qualia are too subjective even to be based on such firing patterns. Those who argue that qualia (as defined) do not exist, argue that they require the operation of a material brain without which there are no qualia and can't be. I can't understand the philosophical school of thought that disputes this, because I'm not familiar enough with philosophy to grasp the jargon.

But if the anti-qualia philosophers are correct, then science is not limited in scope at all, and is fully capable of investigating the gods, BECAUSE "the gods" are DEFINED as being the outward symptoms of patterns of neural firings within the brain, and thus material and susceptible to investigation. Those who think the gods exist somehow OUTSIDE of neural firing patterns are doing nothing more than illustrating yet another firing pattern! Intersubjective validation then requires something more substantial than the observation that even morons have opinions.

[Jorge]

I realize that I am rarely serious in my interactions with you--this is one of those times.

Obviously you disagree with the mainstream definition of science, because the mainstream definition specifically acknowledges that it is not competent to discern anything about the existence or nature of possible spiritual entities. How would you define science so that it is competent to discern spiritual things?

*********************************************************

Fair question, and a good one. [ It was questions such as this one that
long ago brought me to intellectually 'see' the Reality of God. ]

To answer your question, one of the things that good science ought
to do at all times is follow observations and sound reasoning to its
best possible conclusion. For this purpose, I prefer the term
'non-material' to the term 'spiritual'. The best possible conclusion
that observations and sound reasoning lead us to is that there is a
reality beyond mere Materialism; i.e., the non-material realm exists.
With more meditation, philosophy and reasoning, spiritual things,
and eventually God, is obtained.

What we have today is that the non-material / spiritual realm is
excluded a priori. That is poor philosophy and poor science since
a reasonably viable possibility should never be excluded a priori.

Jorge

[technomage]

To answer your question, one of the things that good science ought
to do at all times is follow observations and sound reasoning to its
best possible conclusion. For this purpose, I prefer the term
'non-material' to the term 'spiritual'. The best possible conclusion
that observations and sound reasoning lead us to is that there is a
reality beyond mere Materialism; i.e., the non-material realm exists.
With more meditation, philosophy and reasoning, spiritual things,
and eventually God, is obtained.

I happen to agree with the broad outline of your conclusion, but I also recognize that to reach that conclusion, I had to leave the bounds of science and delve into other methods of inquiry.

What we have today is that the non-material / spiritual realm is
excluded a priori. That is poor philosophy and poor science since
a reasonably viable possibility should never be excluded a priori.

I see it differently--science, because it is not competent to delve into the field of non-material phenomena, should not be used in the attempt. Those who study science should neither attempt to extend their field past its competence, nor should they rely solely on science to gain information about the world.

The person who attempts to use science (as the mainstream definition stands, excluding non-material phenomena) as their ONLY method to gain information about the world is a fool--I think we can agree on that.

[phank]

I happen to agree with the broad outline of your conclusion, but I also recognize that to reach that conclusion, I had to leave the bounds of science and delve into other methods of inquiry.

And those other methods of inquiry, being entirely subjective, run the very real risk of assuming your conclusion. To put it more bluntly, you did not REACH that conclusion, you STARTED with it and found that it was impervious to any physical evidence, since such evidence was irrelevant from the start. So while you may be entirely happy with an assumed conclusion, you might recognize that those who start with different assumptions have no compelling reason to reach your conclusion.

I see it differently--science, because it is not competent to delve into the field of non-material phenomena, should not be used in the attempt. Those who study science should neither attempt to extend their field past its competence, nor should they rely solely on science to gain information about the world.

The person who attempts to use science (as the mainstream definition stands, excluding non-material phenomena) as their ONLY method to gain information about the world is a fool--I think we can agree on that.

But unlike Jorge, you may be able to explain more articulately what you mean. Earlier you agreed that no suitable tool for gaining such information exists, which doesn't permit you to say that it IS information, beyond subjective preference.

How would you answer the argument that science is the tool for gaining intersubjectively valid, reliable and objective information about the world, beyond which lies subjective preference? In that case, is the fool the person whose subjective preferences differ from yours, or is the fool someone who thinks science has reliable access to subjective impressions, or else exactly what does the fool DO, to be foolish? I asked earlier what tool the non-fool uses in the goal of gaining genuine information science cannot, and your reply was "I'm not certain any such tool exists". NOW you are saying to USE this non-existent tool, or be a fool. This is confusing.

[technomage]

Oh, and by the way, Jorge--thank you for answering my question.

[pancreasman]

When you fall in love, and experience being able to let go of your ego with someone else that is a valuable learning process which if reduced to chemistry is to miss the wonder. Not to mention your wife will hit you. My life is enriched by my relationship with my wife and children. You can't get it from a book. You miss something if it is only an abstraction to you. I wouldn't call that any kind of information. Information is not the only thing that enriches life.

My experience, and the wealth I draw from that experience, of good literature, fine art, great music, good friends, fine food make my life rich. There are some things in life that can't be passed on or learnt through an arid scientific report. You have to participate. Whatever spirituality means, it belongs more in this category of life than in the same category as geology.

[technomage]

I found it hard to understand whether qualia are philosopohical or neurological constructs.

I'm ... less than impressed with the purely philosophical concept of qualia--the one that says "There is no neurological component." It's an interesting concept, I guess, but it smacks of saying "I know what it's all about" before all of the evidence is in. If we can definitely identify that there is no corresponding neurological component, then I'll be content--until that time, I'm content to let the question be unanswered.

[technomage]

And those other methods of inquiry, being entirely subjective, run the very real risk of assuming your conclusion. To put it more bluntly, you did not REACH that conclusion, you STARTED with it and found that it was impervious to any physical evidence, since such evidence was irrelevant from the start. So while you may be entirely happy with an assumed conclusion, you might recognize that those who start with different assumptions have no compelling reason to reach your conclusion.

Oh, I do realize that--it's part of the reason that I would refuse to proseletyze.

But I will say, your argument above assumes that I reached the same conclusion I originally held. Why do you assume that, and (i you choose to make your assumption a hypothesis) what would falsify that statement?

More to the point ... how does your atheism differ from any other belief system, viewed from the process you describe above?

Earlier you agreed that no suitable tool for gaining such information exists, which doesn't permit you to say that it IS information, beyond subjective preference.

On this, I disagree. There are elements of subjective information that cannot be transmitted intersubjectively, but are still relevant. These are what you would call "qualia," though as I said earlier I am not satisfied to simply assume that they are either non-material nor material until the evidence is in. Qualia are not "preferences"--they are experiences, which we can then categorize according to our preferences, but they are not preferences in and of themselves.

How would you answer the argument that science is the tool for gaining intersubjectively valid, reliable and objective information about the world,

On this, I agree, save that I would say that science is a tool.

beyond which lies subjective preference?

You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy. How do you categorize information that is neither within the scientific paradigm, nor an issue of preference? How do you categorize qualia?

In that case, is the fool the person whose subjective preferences differ from yours, or is the fool someone who thinks science has reliable access to subjective impressions, or else exactly what does the fool DO, to be foolish? I asked earlier what tool the non-fool uses in the goal of gaining genuine information science cannot, and your reply was "I'm not certain any such tool exists". NOW you are saying to USE this non-existent tool, or be a fool. This is confusing.

I am saying that using science to attempt to gain information on something that science is, by definition, incapable of working with is foolish.