The usual expression is ‘methodological naturalism’. — Wayfarer
Ontological materialism is the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist. For the ontological materialist anything immaterial must be the product of the material. In principle all immaterial phenomena must be reducible to (explicable by) natural laws. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Social Sciences are not made by universals and natural laws — filipeffv
It is possible social behavior is determined by the chemical and physical processes in the brain — SnowyChainsaw
Methodological materialism is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated, it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science aims to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the "supernatural" or into the preternatural begins to address matters that are not natural and to obfuscate the natural. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I imagine these processes are just far too complex for us to fully understand yet and therefore seem random or unpredictable. — SnowyChainsaw
But you would have to assume that free will doesn't exist — filipeffv
everything is a successive and progressive process of causes, it necessarily assumes a free first cause — filipeffv
the chemical process of mind are not causes, but effects — filipeffv
The point of my whole thread (Physical vs. Non-Physical) was to question this distinction between what science can explain and what some other method can explain. — Harry Hindu
There are many explanations to what is and what is not and science is the best method we have so far come up with to find them regardless of whether the subject is physical, not physical, natural or super natural. This is because science is merely a method of analysis and can be applied to anything. — SnowyChainsaw
Of course, but if you want to determine which claims are more useful than others, and therefore more accurate, then they need to be testable and falsifiable, or else every claim has just as much validity as every other claim, which includes contradictory claims. When two claims contradict each other, how do you go about getting at which one is more accurate?Not everything we are interested in is falsifiable or testable. — tom
Of course, but if you want to determine which claims are more useful than others, and therefore more accurate, then they need to be testable and falsifiable, or else every claim has just as much validity as every other claim, which includes contradictory claims. When two claims contradict each other, how do you go about getting at which one is more accurate? — Harry Hindu
No. Science is defined by the Principle of Demarcation. Not everything we are interested in is falsifiable or testable. — tom
1. Only my mind exists.
2. There exists a Reality independent of my mind.
Science can't help you with that one. — tom
And of course we have the age-old ideas:
1. Only my mind exists.
2. There exists a Reality independent of my mind.
Science can't help you with that one. — tom
Actually it can, we just don't know how to apply it yet. (Edit: how to make the necessary observations) — SnowyChainsaw
Nor need it. The rock one throws at your head, when you're looking the other way, really hurts when it strikes you. If that isn't enough evidence that that rock is/was independent of your mind, then nothing could be. — creativesoul
Does attempting to explain the software programs of a computer via a description of its hardware allow us to understand the content of the software? — Joshs
The rock one throws at your head, when you're looking the other way, really hurts when it strikes you. If that isn't enough evidence that that rock is/was independent of your mind, then nothing could be.
— creativesoul
No, it's not evidence of anything. My mind creates all phenomena. — tom
Actually, that is false. That "only my mind exists" is logically coherent and unfalsifiable, in principle. — tom
Currently unfalsifiable. New techniques or technologies may allow us to directly observe a mind and it will be through the scientific method that we will make an analysis. — SnowyChainsaw
So, you throw rocks at yourself, unbeknownst to yourself?
Nice. — creativesoul
Perhaps you might indicate how Solipsism is in principle falsifiable? — tom
Perhaps you might indicate how Solipsism is in principle falsifiable? — tom
I admit that with current techniques and levels of technology this is impossible but if we were able to observe more then one's own mind to exist, then Solipsism would be false. — SnowyChainsaw
Perhaps we might do this by digitizing a person's mind and either copying or transferring it into an artificial body. Perhaps the answer lies in the mysteries of higher dimensions. I can only speculate but it is an undeniable possibility and an very likely scenario. — SnowyChainsaw
Get thought and belief right, in terms of it's necessary and sufficient conditions in addition to it's elemental constituency, and it becomes quite clear that solipsism is existentially contingent upon meaning. Meaning... that which becomes sign/symbol and that which becomes signified/symbolized and an agent to draw correlations between the two that result in signification/symbolism(the attribution of meaning). — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.