There are no material objects

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Highlighted bit means that any research is pointless by definition, so why pursue science in the first place?

If I misunderstood, please say so, and clarify where I misunderstood you, so I don't just have to take a guess.

I think the mistake is assuming that, because ontology is moot, phenomena is not interesting per se... it is irrelevant the "final composition" of what we call reality; Knowledge is interesting (for some of us) because we need to learn, to understand, to create.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think the mistake is assuming that, because ontology is moot, phenomena is not interesting per se... it is irrelevant the "final composition" of what we call reality; Knowledge is interesting (for some of us) because we need to learn, to understand, to create.

Now we're getting somewhere.

"Even if we can't know everything, we can at least try as best we can to understand as much as possible"

Sounds reasonable.

But I don't understand why we can't name stuff as we discover it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Now we're getting somewhere.

"Even if we can't know everything, we can at least try as best we can to understand as much as possible"

Sounds reasonable.

But I don't understand why we can't name stuff as we discover it.

Oh of course we can name it. If someone comes to tell me that he believes in ghosts, I would argue all sorts of naive materialist arguments to attempt to show him why "immaterial stuff" such as ghosts, have no place in today's most advanced world view. This is not because I believe in such a thing as "matter", just because that's what his mind would be able to understand... material stuff against immaterial stuff...

Now, if I'm talking to a skeptic, a naturalist, an instrumentalist, a scientific realist, we can discuss the results of experiments, the relation between the facts and our theoretical models, and so on.. without resorting to mythical "ultimate substances" of any sort.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Oh of course we can name it. If someone comes to tell me that he believes in ghosts, I would argue all sorts of naive materialist arguments to attempt to show him why "immaterial stuff" such as ghosts, have no place in today's most advanced world view. This is not because I believe in such a thing as "matter", just because that's what his mind would be able to understand... material stuff against immaterial stuff...

Now, if I'm talking to a skeptic, a naturalist, an instrumentalist, a scientific realist, we can discuss the results of experiments, the relation between the facts and our theoretical models, and so on.. without resorting to mythical "ultimate substances" of any sort.

Just out of curiosity, name one of these "ultimate substances" which scientists talk about so often. I'm curious, and eager to learn.

 

[Resume]

In other words, most philosophical discussion is a total waste of time. Or as Mercutio so eloquently put it: metaphysics is a pantload.

Excellently observed. Now let us cultivate our garden.

 

[The Norseman]

Oh of course we can name it. If someone comes to tell me that he believes in ghosts, I would argue all sorts of naive materialist arguments to attempt to show him why "immaterial stuff" such as ghosts, have no place in today's most advanced world view. This is not because I believe in such a thing as "matter", just because that's what his mind would be able to understand... material stuff against immaterial stuff...

Now, if I'm talking to a skeptic, a naturalist, an instrumentalist, a scientific realist, we can discuss the results of experiments, the relation between the facts and our theoretical models, and so on.. without resorting to mythical "ultimate substances" of any sort.

If someone comes to me and says they believe in ghosts, I never would have thought of saying that "immaterial stuff ha no place in today's most advanced world view;" I would simply say, "there's no evidence."

It seems to me to cut to the chase and not assume someone's worldview is 'naïve materialist.' I did read your link regarding instrumentalism and I tend to agree with it. Don't know if that has anything to do with my answer here or not though.

 

[dafydd]

If someone comes to me and says they believe in ghosts, I never would have thought of saying that "immaterial stuff ha no place in today's most advanced world view;" I would simply say, "there's no evidence."

It seems to me to cut to the chase and not assume someone's worldview is 'naïve materialist.' I did read your link regarding instrumentalism and I tend to agree with it. Don't know if that has anything to do with my answer here or not though.

I play lots of instruments, mostly stringed instruments.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If someone comes to me and says they believe in ghosts, I never would have thought of saying that "immaterial stuff ha no place in today's most advanced world view;" I would simply say, "there's no evidence."

It seems to me to cut to the chase and not assume someone's worldview is 'naïve materialist.' I did read your link regarding instrumentalism and I tend to agree with it. Don't know if that has anything to do with my answer here or not though.

It has, of course. The problem is when people uses words like "evidence" without understanding that it can only be seen (and understood) from the relevant world view. Where a religious fundamentalist see the works of a demon, a psychiatrist see a schizophrenic. So... Evidences are not enough.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

It has, of course. The problem is when people uses words like "evidence" without understanding that it can only be seen (and understood) from the relevant world view. Where a religious fundamentalist see the works of a demon, a psychiatrist see a schizophrenic. So... Evidences are not enough.

Agreed, we need a frame of reference. Context in other words.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed, we need a frame of reference. Context in other words.

Yes. That is one of the big mistakes made by many different people. What we have is data. Evidence is data interpreted from a particular perspective and used to promote or deny some proposition. Many folks seem to treat 'evidence' as though it is independent of interpretation.

 

[Dancing David]

It has, of course. The problem is when people uses words like "evidence" without understanding that it can only be seen (and understood) from the relevant world view. Where a religious fundamentalist see the works of a demon, a psychiatrist see a schizophrenic. So... Evidences are not enough.

One explanation is incoherent and inconsistent, the other is not.

 

[dafydd]

One explanation is incoherent and inconsistent, the other is not.

Exactly. All one has to do is apply a little common sense.

 

[dafydd]

Agreed, we need a frame of reference. Context in other words.

It all depends.

'Was that hurricane caused by atmospheric forces or by a sky daddy in a bad mood?'

I don't think that we need context to work out the answer to that one.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

One explanation is incoherent and inconsistent, the other is not.

But David, that's exactly the point. From the point of view of the fundamentalist... her/his point of view is coherent and consistent!!! It all depends on the frame of reference. If you are outside the equation, for instance, you parents were skeptics and raised you in a free thinkers environment, then you would see that the fundamentalist is wrong... but it is wrong from where? This is the key point.

From a different, more encompassing world view, one able to explain a lot more than the one of the fundamentalist...

Now, to make things worst, there are all kind of mechanisms "word of satan, evil, etc" to prevent the fundamentalist from escaping her/his world view, and these mechanisms are structured in a way that it appears they give consistency to their worldview.

 

[Twiler]

But David, that's exactly the point. From the point of view of the fundamentalist... her/his point of view is coherent and consistent!!! It all depends on the frame of reference. If you are outside the equation, for instance, you parents were skeptics and raised you in a free thinkers environment, then you would see that the fundamentalist is wrong... but it is wrong from where? This is the key point.

From a different, more encompassing world view, one able to explain a lot more than the one of the fundamentalist...

Now, to make things worst, there are all kind of mechanisms "word of satan, evil, etc" to prevent the fundamentalist from escaping her/his world view, and these mechanisms are structured in a way that it appears they give consistency to their worldview.

I think the thing is that the fundamentalist world view is held up with circular arguments and other fallacies. In short, doublethink.

Their views can't be reconciled with their everyday lives; For example, they might think that divine forces will protect them, but they still won't step in front of speeding vehicles.

 

[Sideroxylon]

But David, that's exactly the point. From the point of view of the fundamentalist... her/his point of view is coherent and consistent!!! It all depends on the frame of reference. If you are outside the equation, for instance, you parents were skeptics and raised you in a free thinkers environment, then you would see that the fundamentalist is wrong... but it is wrong from where? This is the key point.

From a different, more encompassing world view, one able to explain a lot more than the one of the fundamentalist...

Now, to make things worst, there are all kind of mechanisms "word of satan, evil, etc" to prevent the fundamentalist from escaping her/his world view, and these mechanisms are structured in a way that it appears they give consistency to their worldview.

I am not sure that all fundamentalists value coherency and consistency in their narratives. There is little or no tendency to question a divine narrative.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think the thing is that the fundamentalist world view is held up with circular arguments and other fallacies.

Indeed, from the outside, but for them, everything is a confirmation of their beliefs... until... something happens that makes them "crack their egg".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am not sure that all fundamentalists value coherency and consistency in their narratives. There is little or no tendency to question a divine narrative.

And that's exactly one of the main mechanisms they have to be absolutely sure about they and only they are right!

 

[tsig]

It all depends.

'Was that hurricane caused by atmospheric forces or by a sky daddy in a bad mood?'

I don't think that we need context to work out the answer to that one.

Mankind bad

Skydaddy sad

Skydaddy punish punish punish

 

[Dancing David]

But David, that's exactly the point. From the point of view of the fundamentalist... her/his point of view is coherent and consistent!!! It all depends on the frame of reference. If you are outside the equation, for instance, you parents were skeptics and raised you in a free thinkers environment, then you would see that the fundamentalist is wrong... but it is wrong from where? This is the key point.

From a different, more encompassing world view, one able to explain a lot more than the one of the fundamentalist...

Now, to make things worst, there are all kind of mechanisms "word of satan, evil, etc" to prevent the fundamentalist from escaping her/his world view, and these mechanisms are structured in a way that it appears they give consistency to their worldview.

I happen to disagree, demonic possession is not coherent, it can not be validated. That is why I used the term coherent. It does not have self consistent criteria, explanations that pass double blinding, etc...

It may be self consistent and meet self reference and confirmation bias, but it is not a coherent theory in terms of validation, despite the fact that it is a not uncommon belief.