What exactly have you presented, again? Can you summarize and lay out your argument?

12/4/2006 10:28:22 PM

I have presented that you're an idiot, with ample support from my peers.

12/4/2006 10:30:01 PM

Argumentum ad populum.

Your only evidence is a logical fallacy. Nice.

12/4/2006 10:31:59 PM

haha, are you fucking serious?

What a fucking moron.

12/4/2006 10:33:50 PM

Look, I don't see why you should continue to participate in this thread if you're not going to engage the issue.

12/4/2006 10:34:36 PM

You are nothing more than a parasite of knowledge. You cannot learn intelligence McDanger.

12/4/2006 10:36:54 PM

A parasite of knowledge? Or of information? Are you sure exactly what you're talking about? Maybe I'm just a parasite of justified belief? Or true justified belief? Maybe I'm a parasite of methods.

12/4/2006 10:38:46 PM

you never answered my question:

why is it bad if scientists pose untestable hypotheses? won't any rational people see it as such? why are scientists held to any sort of higher standard as to what they should and shouldn't say? how is limiting discourse in any way going to help society as a whole?

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : if you'll notice i asked these questions (in various forms) earlier, and you never really responded]

12/4/2006 10:42:07 PM

Quote :

"why is it bad if scientists pose untestable hypotheses?"

Falsifiability is crucial to science. I shouldn't have to explain that to you, are you familiar with science? If something is not falsifiable, then no evidence can be amassed for it or against it. This is not something science should be addressing.

Quote :

"why are scientists held to any sort of higher standard as to what they should and shouldn't say? "

Scientists, when claiming to be making scientific judgments, should be doing science.

Quote :

"how is limiting discourse in any way going to help society as a whole?"

It's not, but it's important that these discussions are framed properly.

12/4/2006 10:46:37 PM

so someone will say it's not science. what's the problem?

i think a flaw is that you're treating "science" instead of an individual. the point is "science" is made up of countless individual scientists who do a pretty good job of policing themselves for "bad scientists" in this day in age. it might take a while to root out the bad science. but it usually happens.



[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 10:48:57 PM

Quote :

"so someone will say it's not science. what's the problem? i think a flaw is that you're treating "science" instead of an individual. the point is "science" is made up of countless individual scientists who do a pretty good job of policing themselves for "bad scientists" in this day in age. it might take a while to root out the bad science. but it usually happens."

This is precisely what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that these things are bad science.

12/4/2006 10:52:39 PM

and how is this in any way noteworthy?

12/4/2006 10:53:27 PM

It obviously is, given the amount of resistance the ideas have seen in this thread. I'm pointing out that science being used as a cudgel for a metaphysical viewpoint is a bad thing. Science has been "in the corner" of mechanism for quite a while. I am making the point that this is unscientific.

12/4/2006 10:54:42 PM

well i haven't disagreed with that at all. i've disagreed with you thinking you had made some sort of point.

from the second page:

Quote :

"if all you're doing is saying "bad scientists are bad" then what the fuck is the point?"

bad scientist is a bad scientist if he doesn't follow the principle tenants of the scientific method etc. any person with half a brain can discern real science from crap.

i mean you could just as easily have made a philosophical argument against people fudging numbers. it's bad science. plain and simple.

if someone is trying to use science to prove something that is unverifiable, then there is bound to be some bad science in there.

the problem takes care of itself.

12/4/2006 10:57:47 PM

Quote :

"bad scientist is a bad scientist if he doesn't follow the principle tenants of the scientific method etc. any person with half a brain can discern real science from crap."

Then why do people think I'm crazy when I reject the concept of matter?

Quote :

"i mean you could just as easily have made a philosophical argument against people fudging numbers. it's bad science. plain and simple."

Not quite. This is a specific mode of malpractice that must be addressed, and is rather unaddressed in modern discussion.

Quote :

"if someone is trying to use science to prove something that is unverifiable, then there is bound to be some bad science in there."

Seeing as how quite a lot of people think that mechanism is supported by science, I'd disagree with that statement. The concept of matter has been deemed scientific for a few hundred years now, with only a few people here and there objecting to the concept.

12/4/2006 11:02:09 PM

the idea of science is coming closer and closer to the right answers by progressive re-examination and revision of ideas. in that regard there is no truth in science, only hopefully increasingly good estimations of it. people outside of science always seem to have a hard time understandning this.

i can't say for sure that there isn't a god. i can't say for sure that atoms exist. but i'm almost certain both of those statements are true. certain enough that it gets me through the day. just as we're all certain enough in gravity that we can depend on what it will do, even though we're not 100% sure of how it works. people don't question the existence of gravity much because there is such a mountain of evidence supporting its existence. the same can be said for matter.

the idea that people would confuse people talking about the existence of god or other metaphysical questions with science baffles me. who, with just a little bit of reflection, would not disregard these sorts of arguments as unscientific?

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 11:12:30 PM

Quote :

"the idea of science is coming closer and closer to the right answers by progressive re-examination and revision of ideas. in that regard there is no truth in science, only hopefully increasingly good estimations of it. people outside of science always seem to have a hard time understandning this. "

This is true in the context of phenomena.

Quote :

"i can't say for sure that there isn't a god. i can't say for sure that atoms exist. but i'm almost certain both of those statements are true."

What phenomenal evidence leads you to believe these things?

Quote :

"the idea that people would confuse people talking about the existence of god or other metaphysical questions with science baffles me. who, with just a little bit of reflection, would not disregard these sorts of arguments as unscientific?"

You, apparently, as you attribute your certainty in these matters to scientific method.

12/4/2006 11:15:25 PM

i am not certain. almost certain, friend.

i am unsure of all things

i would never contend that there is no god. there is just no evidence to support it, so i don't see the point.

if this gets into "but what IS reality" can you REALLY trust your perception? etc. well then there's not much that can be said to that. any debate can devolve into that and it's really silly.

i make judgments based on what's in front of me. i don't believe in a god, not because the scientific method has disproven it, but because it's a pointless question. one that can't be answered.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 11:19:10 PM

Certainty as in measure of certainty.

12/4/2006 11:20:47 PM

and as far as evidence for atoms: years and years of scientific work in the field by others.

12/4/2006 11:26:20 PM

What is this exact evidence and how does it truly point beyond anything phenomenal in nature? You're going to have to be specific here instead of simply appealing to authority. Demonstrate your claim.

12/4/2006 11:27:12 PM

someone used a microscope to take pictures of atoms.
we harness the power of atoms for energy.
chemistry works.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

the point is:

it doesn't PROVE atoms exist. it just makes a very strong case for their existence.

and the fact there have been no successful attempts to DISPROVE atoms' existence

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 11:28:38 PM

What it does is make a strong case for phenomenal forces that act in that manner. You're supposing there must be a metaphysical actor behind those forces, but science itself does not entail this belief at all.


Edit:

Quote :

"it doesn't PROVE atoms exist. it just makes a very strong case for their existence. and the fact there have been no successful attempts to DISPROVE atoms' existence"

This sounds a lot like religious backpedaling.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:36 PM. Reason : . ]

12/4/2006 11:34:39 PM

how in the world is that backpedaling?

i've been saying things like this since i was a pre-teen.

12/4/2006 11:37:50 PM

Ok, I see your point about mathematics not being able to prove an existence or non-existence of matter. It is like having ripples in a pond, but not seeing the rock go in. You can pinpoint where the rock went in, but you can never prove that the ripples were actually caused by a rock in the first place, although it would be LOGICAL to assume the ripples were caused by a rock or some piece of matter. I think the best application of this theory to our actual world is that of the computer program, except that it was never programmed by any being, it simply always has and always will exist. Where I think you are wrong is that saying science supposes this cannot be true (and I think this may have been why you seperated this into good and bad scientists). Science, in my sense of the word, is to define the laws of our universe as best as is testably possible, to define the equations and programming sequences which define our universe (in keeping with the computer program analogy). It is of no concern to science why these forces exist, only that they work whenever tested, and can be applied. However, when scientists begin saying that because these forces do work, and thus do not need God or "disprove" God in any way, science has stepped out of its bounds. Was this the exact point you were originally trying to make, because if so, then I agree that this is the difference between good and bad science. I do not AGREE that we live in a computer program, but I would agree that it is a possibility.

My point about the valid scientific argument vs philosophical argument is that if you want to prove that the non-existence of matter is the actual case, you need some sort of very strong testable SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, whatever that may be. However, if you only want to make a philosophical argument, you need only to prove that it is a possibility.

I also still contest that the existence of matter is the most scientific and logical MODEL of our universe. Until something definitively disproves it, there is no reason not to continue using it to make predictions and calculations.

12/4/2006 11:37:50 PM

Quote :

"how in the world is that backpedaling? i've been saying things like this since i was a pre-teen."

You pushed the burden of proof for a positive claim onto the skeptic.

Quote :

"You can pinpoint where the rock went in, but you can never prove that the ripples were actually caused by a rock in the first place, although it would be LOGICAL to assume the ripples were caused by a rock or some piece of matter."

The analogy is a bit flawed but I'll let it slide for our purposes -- logical is the right way to characterize this. The subject behind the phenomena is a logical-metaphysical postulate.

Quote :

"I think the best application of this theory to our actual world is that of the computer program, except that it was never programmed by any being, it simply always has and always will exist."

I still object to this because it assumes there's something causing the phenomena. I see no good reason to accept that anything causes the apparent world, and certainly no scientific reason.

Quote :

"Science, in my sense of the word, is to define the laws of our universe as best as is testably possible, to define the equations and programming sequences which define our universe (in keeping with the computer program analogy)."

I'm with you, more or less, in this metaphor. I, however, like to characterize it in terms of learning how to calculate certain types of forces. I don't really think there are natural laws at play here, simply facts of the matter when it comes to behavior.

Quote :

"However, when scientists begin saying that because these forces do work, and thus do not need God or "disprove" God in any way, science has stepped out of its bounds. Was this the exact point you were originally trying to make, because if so, then I agree that this is the difference between good and bad science. I do not AGREE that we live in a computer program, but I would agree that it is a possibility."

We're on the same page here. I don't think we're in a computer program either -- my skepticism isn't a brain-in-a-vat or a Matrix scenario at all.

Quote :

"My point about the valid scientific argument vs philosophical argument is that if you want to prove that the non-existence of matter is the actual case, you need some sort of very strong testable SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, whatever that may be. However, if you only want to make a philosophical argument, you need only to prove that it is a possibility."

Since my point is that none of this is scientific in nature in the first place, a philosophical argument is the only appropriate avenue.

Quote :

"I also still contest that the existence of matter is the most scientific and logical MODEL of our universe. Until something definitively disproves it, there is no reason not to continue using it to make predictions and calculations."

I don't think the metaphysical concept of matter goes into calculations at all. The apparent force of mass, however, does. This is okay, and I do not object to this.

12/4/2006 11:45:03 PM

Quote :

"You pushed the burden of proof for a positive claim onto the skeptic."

not really. since i said two statements not one. both that there is evidence of it existing AND it hasn't been disproven.

12/4/2006 11:46:35 PM

Actually, McD, the notion of us all being the product of a computer program goes to support your ideas. It's similar to the "brain-in-a-jar" postulate. In the computer program idea, there wouldn't be any matter. It would all be the product of the program. All observations would be the result of the program.

Moreover, the laws would actually "just be" for those created by the program. There would be a rationale behind the laws, but those in the program might never find that rationale. They might be able to or they might not be able to. it's a simple thought experiment that serves to perfectly prove your point about the existence of actual matter being a metaphysical question.

I think a lot of people are attacking you for pointing out a perfectly fine example of a metaphysical aspect of science. You aren't disagreeing w/ science's assertion. Rather, you are using an example of science's delving into metaphysical matters to prove your point that science does such things. People should care less about the example and if atoms really exist and instead look to what the example's existence means or implies.


Also, many people have asserted that "bad science will be criticized by good scientists," but this simply is not the case. We can't lean on this statement, because we have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. From Pasteur's experiments we can see that the notion of a "good" or "bad" scientist is entirely dependent upon with whom you agree.

Moreover, science is now used as a political tool and is looked to as an authority. Religion used to be the authority, and we all know how that authority was abused. Why should we believe that science will not do the same? Sure, today we can look at the "science" of Hitler's search for the Master Race and laugh at it, but suppose Hitler had won. Would we laugh at it then?

And then, what happens when the majority of scientists are blinded to important flaws in their experiments? Someone comes along and challenges them, and that person is ostracized and attacked for being "unscientific." The authority of science is used to protect pride and status. Again, a perfect example is that of Pasteur. What about the debate over global warming? What about Intelligent Design? In one, we see scientists insulting each other over things and not doing what they should be doing: testing hypotheses. We see them just spouting whatever fits their agenda, and the end result is that the intelligent people just don't know what the hell to believe. In both, we see "scientists" looking down their noses with disgust at those who "just don't understand science." ID can't be proven or disproven, sure, but that's the point. People point to science as the reason ID shouldn't be in schools, yet science has nothing to say either way! Scientists stand here and tell us "oh we are right, those fools are just fools." They tell us that they are the source of truth. Where are the "good scientists" to police these arrogant, pompous fools?

12/4/2006 11:50:20 PM

All of the evidence you have provided point to phenomena. Only a logical/metaphysical move directs you to the concept of matter in and of itself. ^^

^ Holy shit, let me read that. I posted before I saw what you wrote.

Okay! I read it. Here it goes:

Quote :

"Actually, McD, the notion of us all being the product of a computer program goes to support your ideas. It's similar to the "brain-in-a-jar" postulate. In the computer program idea, there wouldn't be any matter. It would all be the product of the program. All observations would be the result of the program."

I disagree, because I object to the necessity of anything causing the phenomena.

Quote :

"Moreover, the laws would actually "just be" for those created by the program. There would be a rationale behind the laws, but those in the program might never find that rationale. They might be able to or they might not be able to. it's a simple thought experiment that serves to perfectly prove your point about the existence of actual matter being a metaphysical question."

Yeah but in this case the computer program would be the metaphysical actor, and again I object to the need for a subject to enact apparent forces.

Quote :

"I think a lot of people are attacking you for pointing out a perfectly fine example of a metaphysical aspect of science. You aren't disagreeing w/ science's assertion. Rather, you are using an example of science's delving into metaphysical matters to prove your point that science does such things. People should care less about the example and if atoms really exist and instead look to what the example's existence means or implies."

Yeah you're absolutely right -- we're side tracked on an example I provided, but my main point is resting off elsewhere. It's okay though, this isn't proving to be such a bad conversation after all.

Quote :

"Also, many people have asserted that "bad science will be criticized by good scientists," but this simply is not the case. We can't lean on this statement, because we have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. From Pasteur's experiments we can see that the notion of a "good" or "bad" scientist is entirely dependent upon with whom you agree."

Well I don't things are so subjective in the case of claims made about phenomenal reality... but in terms of wacky metaphysics, yes, I agree.

Quote :

"Moreover, science is now used as a political tool and is looked to as an authority. Religion used to be the authority, and we all know how that authority was abused. Why should we believe that science will not do the same? Sure, today we can look at the "science" of Hitler's search for the Master Race and laugh at it, but suppose Hitler had won. Would we laugh at it then?"

Sensationalism aside (I don't really like bringing up Nazi comparisons), I think you make a decent point -- science is looked to as an authority because it gets a lot right. I just don't want to see this abused, for science's sake.

Quote :

"And then, what happens when the majority of scientists are blinded to important flaws in their experiments? Someone comes along and challenges them, and that person is ostracized and attacked for being "unscientific." The authority of science is used to protect pride and status. Again, a perfect example is that of Pasteur. What about the debate over global warming? What about Intelligent Design? In one, we see scientists insulting each other over things and not doing what they should be doing: testing hypotheses. We see them just spouting whatever fits their agenda, and the end result is that the intelligent people just don't know what the hell to believe. In both, we see "scientists" looking down their noses with disgust at those who "just don't understand science." ID can't be proven or disproven, sure, but that's the point. People point to science as the reason ID shouldn't be in schools, yet science has nothing to say either way! Scientists stand here and tell us "oh we are right, those fools are just fools." They tell us that they are the source of truth. Where are the "good scientists" to police these arrogant, pompous fools?"

Well since ID cannot be proven or disproven, it's not science. I'll argue with you until I'm blue in the face that ID isn't science. Thus, science shouldn't even operate on it. However, whenever ID makes factual claims about reality, then science SHOULD have something to say. And in the respect that it does, science responds.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 11:50:56 PM

^^ that is exactly what the Southpark was about... it should be required watching for this post. I agree with the point of the episode wholeheartedly.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 11:56 PM. Reason : too many ^s]

12/4/2006 11:56:05 PM

Quote :

"My point about the valid scientific argument vs philosophical argument is that if you want to prove that the non-existence of matter is the actual case, you need some sort of very strong testable SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, whatever that may be. However, if you only want to make a philosophical argument, you need only to prove that it is a possibility."

but therein lies the problem. how can you scientifically test the existence of matter? if everytime you opened your mouth I shocked you with electricity but you didn't know it and couldn't ever know that I was the cause, you would logically conclude that opening your mouth causes electricity to be created. you could never test it otherwise. Yet it wouldn't change the fact that it isn't the opening of your mouth that actually causes the shock. Rather, it's the sadistic bastard on the other side of the mirror.

That's a limited analogy, but I think you can see what it means. If the laws and such that govern our existence dictate that things should behave as if there actually were physical matter, then all of our attempts to observe matter (read: scientific experiments) and such would produce the realism of matter. There's nothing we could do to prove the opposite.

12/4/2006 11:57:47 PM

Well it actually comes down to the fact that REAL MATTER would not be observable in itself. It would be observable as a phenomenon (which is what we perceive now). My point is, why even suppose this "thing-in-itself" is there? It's not needed for the explanation. Additionally, it cannot be addressed with science because it's not phenomenal in nature.

12/4/2006 11:59:21 PM

and i'm saying. okay. what difference does that make? how is this a problem?

12/5/2006 12:02:12 AM

Because science should not make metaphysical judgments and pass them off as scientific.

12/5/2006 12:03:38 AM

what difference does that make? how is this a problem?

[Edited on December 5, 2006 at 12:07 AM. Reason : in this particular instance]

in effect all this metaphysical assumption does is make it easier to represent phenomena for discussion.

[Edited on December 5, 2006 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2006 12:07:00 AM

Quote :

"I disagree, because I object to the necessity of anything causing the phenomena. "

But that's irrelevant to the point. That there exists a situation which cannot be verified or refuted that could explain the observations we make that lead us to say "matter exists" is proof of your original claim. The desire for there to be no actor is just a side concern of yours which has no bearing to whether or not science wrongly delves into the metaphysical

Quote :

"I don't really like bringing up Nazi comparisons"

I hear you, but it's a very apt point. The Nazi's really did give us a LOT of examples of what NOT to do. I don't bring them up to be sensational. I bring them up because they are an example of what we see as absurd today being possibly seen as "right" in other circumstances. And that goes to the heart of your point, I think.

Quote :

"Well since ID cannot be proven or disproven, it's not science."

And yet, science makes it it's business to look down upon the proponents of ID and call them out as whacko nutjobs. They look at their subject as being SOOOO important that they can't be troubled with such petty things. All the while, they are oblivious to the fact that they DO deal with such things. Their opinions are just different about the end result.

I refer to ID in this case because it is an instance where science uses its authority to affect us on a political scale. How it does so is obvious. ID isn't science, yet science objects to the mere mentioning of the words in its goverment-sanctioned churches all across the country, despite the fact that religion and government are to be separate. It's a clear indicator of the status of science as a religion, although it's not one that we readily recognize as a religion. Such things are often more dangerous than the things we actually see as dangers.

Quote :

"what difference does that make? how is this a problem [in this instance]?"

Because it shows how science is blind to its own shortcomings. Not to engage in slippery slope, but when science can so easily be blind and when it follows the paths of others that we see as reprehensible, why should we not be at least a little bit concerned?

[Edited on December 5, 2006 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2006 12:10:31 AM

Quote :

"Because it shows how science is blind to its own shortcomings. Not to engage in slippery slope, but when science can so easily be blind and when it follows the paths of others that we see as reprehensible, why should we not be at least a little bit concerned?"

how do you propose that scientists are blind to this? i am a scientist and understand that the physical world's existence is a philosophical question that can't ever be answered.

12/5/2006 12:12:51 AM

Quote :

"what difference does that make? how is this a problem? in effect all this metaphysical assumption does is make it easier to represent phenomena for discussion."

Because it's not a sketch for easy representation, but a factual claim about reality.

Quote :

"But that's irrelevant to the point. That there exists a situation which cannot be verified or refuted that could explain the observations we make that lead us to say "matter exists" is proof of your original claim. The desire for there to be no actor is just a side concern of yours which has no bearing to whether or not science wrongly delves into the metaphysical"

Oh trust me I have no desire for there to be no thing-in-itself. Internalizing this belief has made me feel considerably less sane.

Quote :

"And yet, science makes it it's business to look down upon the proponents of ID and call them out as whacko nutjobs. They look at their subject as being SOOOO important that they can't be troubled with such petty things. All the while, they are oblivious to the fact that they DO deal with such things. Their opinions are just different about the end result."

ID is one of the cases where science is right to dismiss it altogether. ID isn't science, but tries to be.

I don't know, I'm not going to quote bomb with the rest of your post, burro (mostly because I'm getting extremely tired). What I will say though, is that you're a lot more critical of science than I am, and I don't necessarily agree with the lengths to which you go. I think that many scientific judgments can be verified and are infact good judgments.

12/5/2006 12:15:42 AM

well, I'm not critical of science. I'm critical of its misuse.

12/5/2006 12:19:29 AM

Quote :

"Because it's not a sketch for easy representation, but a factual claim about reality."

rarely does science delve into that topic as primary discussion. and if it does, THEN there would be a problem.

12/5/2006 12:20:31 AM

Quote :

"but therein lies the problem. how can you scientifically test the existence of matter? if everytime you opened your mouth I shocked you with electricity but you didn't know it and couldn't ever know that I was the cause, you would logically conclude that opening your mouth causes electricity to be created. you could never test it otherwise. Yet it wouldn't change the fact that it isn't the opening of your mouth that actually causes the shock. Rather, it's the sadistic bastard on the other side of the mirror. That's a limited analogy, but I think you can see what it means. If the laws and such that govern our existence dictate that things should behave as if there actually were physical matter, then all of our attempts to observe matter (read: scientific experiments) and such would produce the realism of matter. There's nothing we could do to prove the opposite."

You cant scientifically test it, which is why to argue it in a scientific sense would not have any point, unless there was some way to SCIENTIFICALLY prove it (which, as you pointed out, there is not). If McD is trying to argue that matter does not truly exist, but exists for all testable scientific purposes, that is fine, because it is a philosophical argument which proposes one possibility. However, if he is saying that matter does not exist, and we should remove it from the subject of science because it isnt "scientific" enough, then he needs evidence (which, once again, cannot be provided due to the inherent nature of the problem).

I agree with what you say about the whole ID thing, to an extent. It definitely does not belong in science, because to say that it is a part of science would further the very branch of scientists you are denouncing. However, it is ridiculous how angry "scientists" will get when the topic comes up, as if they are scared people will be deterred from their ideas. I do beleive children should be introduced to the idea (just not in biology class). The solution is a simple one to me: start having some sort of introductory philosophy class which presents ideas such as ID, creationism, pure evolution, etc. for students to be made aware of and discuss.

As for the whole computer program thing as not being an accurate model of a reality without mass, I still fail to see your point about how there would be an "actor." I am not proposing that there is an actual textual language which controls the universe, just that we are controlled inside of some other reality, that we dont really exist and are merely puppets which follow some program inside a computer, or follow the laws of some other being's dream. If that still implies an "actor" then what exactly are you proposing? That we do not exist at all, except as a perception of our own reality or some crazy other theory? I just dont see how the program analogy doesnt satisfy every condition of your theory.



[Edited on December 5, 2006 at 2:39 AM. Reason : I didnt know how to quote]

12/5/2006 2:28:43 AM

Quote :

"You cant scientifically test it, which is why to argue it in a scientific sense would not have any point, unless there was some way to SCIENTIFICALLY prove it (which, as you pointed out, there is not). If McD is trying to argue that matter does not truly exist, but exists for all testable scientific purposes, that is fine, because it is a philosophical argument which proposes one possibility. However, if he is saying that matter does not exist, and we should remove it from the subject of science because it isnt "scientific" enough, then he needs evidence (which, once again, cannot be provided due to the inherent nature of the problem)."

The only reason why matter exists for "testable scientific purposes" is because you're insisting that we label the apparent forces at work "matter." Matter-in-itself, or the idea that there's real, actual matter behind the apparent forces is a quite different idea. There could be quite a lot of things behind the phenomena, including nothing. Nothing is what I think, but what I think isn't so important here -- it's what scientists think, and what conclude while claiming to be doing science.

Quote :

"I agree with what you say about the whole ID thing, to an extent. It definitely does not belong in science, because to say that it is a part of science would further the very branch of scientists you are denouncing. However, it is ridiculous how angry "scientists" will get when the topic comes up, as if they are scared people will be deterred from their ideas. I do beleive children should be introduced to the idea (just not in biology class). The solution is a simple one to me: start having some sort of introductory philosophy class which presents ideas such as ID, creationism, pure evolution, etc. for students to be made aware of and discuss."

That wouldn't do either, because ID and creationism are pretty weak philosophies as well. Any fair treatment of them in an academic setting would appear to be biased against them by religious fundamentals that want it taught in the first place.

Quote :

"As for the whole computer program thing as not being an accurate model of a reality without mass, I still fail to see your point about how there would be an "actor." I am not proposing that there is an actual textual language which controls the universe, just that we are controlled inside of some other reality, that we dont really exist and are merely puppets which follow some program inside a computer, or follow the laws of some other being's dream."

This is precisely the type of claim metaphysics makes. The other reality behind our apparent reality would be, in essence, acting and causing our perceptions and the apparent forces around us.

Quote :

"That we do not exist at all, except as a perception of our own reality or some crazy other theory?"

Well I kind of buy the theory that claims we're a multiplicity of forces, drives, and instincts. I don't really believe in the "ego" is a coherent, unified subject that thinks. This is the same reason why I reject substance.

12/5/2006 7:31:18 AM

Ok, I think I have finally found a good analogy as to why it is perfectly logical to label matter as scientific. Do you think saying dinosaurs lived is within the scope of science? Because if so, there is no way to prove they were ever alive. We can find their bones, we can see that all their bones correlate to a certain age, we can tell that the intereacted, and the way each species would have behaved based on fossil evidence. However, we can never turn back the clock and see that they were there. For all we know, the universe was created or "came to be" 100,000 years ago, and dinosaur fossils were put there for a test of faith as Christians would have it, or perhaps they were there for some other purpose, or perhaps just randomly, we can never PROVE that they did or did not exist (just as we cannot prove that your definition of matter does not exist). All we can do is take all the evidence which is available to us, fossils in this case, or phenomena in your case, and draw the best and most logical scientific conclusion. In this case it is logical to conclude that dinosaurs were actually alive, not just some sort of structure put here by God or other beings, and in your case it is logical to conclude that there IS some type of matter behind the phenomena. It cannot ever be proved either way, but to call the idea that there is matter behind phenomena unscientific is to say that assuming the dinosaurs were actually alive is unscientific.

12/5/2006 11:33:12 AM

Naturally we can't be completely certain that dinosaurs did actually exist, but we can make a reasonable factual claim about reality based upon phenomenal evidence. This claim is also a phenomenal claim, or a claim that would have some manifestation in phenomenal reality at some point in time ("dinosaurs DID exist").

But dinosaurs and matter are two distinctly different things -- one is a phenomenal object (a dinosaur) the other is strictly a logical-metaphysical postulate.

12/5/2006 1:05:49 PM

Right, but it is simply an analogy, I obviously realize that dinosaurs and subatomic matter are not the same thing, but the comparison is still valid. I am not saying that your proposition that matter does not exist is the same as saying dinosaurs did not exist. I am saying your proposition that matter does not exist is the same as saying dinosaurs were never ALIVE. There is no way we can go back in time and prove it either way, just as there is no way that we can look at the subatomic level and prove the existance of a physical substance either way. The only difference here is that in my analogy the impossible feat which must be preformed is time travel, and in yours the impossible feat is examination at a subatomic level. I am not saying that your postulate is incorrect, only that science is not outstepping its bounds when it says matter exists, just as it is not outstepping its bounds when it says dinosaurs were alive.

12/5/2006 3:32:44 PM

Quote :

"There is no way we can go back in time and prove it either way, just as there is no way that we can look at the subatomic level and prove the existance of a physical substance either way. The only difference here is that in my analogy the impossible feat which must be preformed is time travel, and in yours the impossible feat is examination at a subatomic level. I am not saying that your postulate is incorrect, only that science is not outstepping its bounds when it says matter exists, just as it is not outstepping its bounds when it says dinosaurs were alive."

My point is that this isn't a good analogy, and the reason why is because there would still be some theoretical way to test that the dinosaurs were alive. You could, in theory, go back in time and observe it yourself. This presumes that it's possible to time travel or that the technology will be available at some point (and it might not be) but the important thing is that in some theoretical way it could be testable.

It's never testable whether actual matter is there or not because no matter what, all observations are phenomenal in nature.

12/5/2006 4:50:44 PM

So if someone creates mathematical proof of string theory, which is far more likely than time travel, would that not prove that matter exists at least in one dimension? If a grand unified theory is discovered which necessitates the existance of a physical matter, would that not prove it? Just because something is not observable does not mean it should not be included in science. If this was the case we could not include gravity as scientific, since there is no proof of its existence, only the force created by it which has been supported by an infinite amount of evidence. If science points to it in every way, then there is nothing wrong with calling it scientific.

On a side note (I am still trying to completely understand your theory, as I find it an interesting philosophical argument), are you saying that basically just as there is no physical "soul," only our interacting thoughts and actions which make up our perception of a soul, there is also no physical matter, only interactions and forces which create the perception of matter (and hence your problem with science including matter, as it would be analogous to including the soul)?

12/5/2006 5:12:47 PM

Quote :

"The end of May, actually. I got 750 bucks to write about this bullshit, can you believe it?"

I'm afraid so. The way the university and government throws around money, nothing surprises me anymore. (no offense) So how does one go about getting a philosophy grant, especially when you're a computer science grad student (according to your profile)? And why is it going to take six months? Anyways, I wouldn't mind reading it again whenever you revise it next. Some examples mixed in would help.

Quote :

"Seeing as how we only interact with phenomena (and can only interact with phenomena), why assume there's more there than what's fully apparent?"

Plz define "phenomena". If there's no matter, how do we experience phenomena?

Quote :

"you can see my objection to science stepping 'out of bounds' to further a religious or social agenda?"

What agenda?

12/5/2006 7:59:40 PM

Don't waste your time talking about proving anything with any degree of certainty. There will always be a philosophical reason to second-guess any assertion ever made, which sometimes makes philosophy seem like a constant losing battle of... "Well, can you know for certain... can you demonstrate that?" I think science is simply a compilation of what is reasonable, reliable, and consistent. It has nothing to do with truth, because I don't think truth actually exists, it's more of a place-holder of sorts. I suppose bad science would be anything that takes away from the core values of science, like the building of scientific methods from essential scientific axioms. Deduction and logic allows us as humans to be consistent and develop propositions for learning and growing. I believe you ought to ask yourself at a certain point, are the questions that you are raising actually bringing you closer to a reasonable, reliable, and consistent belief, or are they making you abandon the core scientific values and forcing your thoughts into an endless regressionary rhetoric? At a certain point you have to make a decision, otherwise you will never really expand on any scientific method. m2c

[Edited on December 5, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : -]

12/5/2006 8:01:17 PM

Quote :

"Then why do people think I'm crazy when I reject the concept of matter?"

Probably because it sounds like "Dude" philosophy. As in, "Dude, what if matter doesn't exist?"

"Dude, what if reality is all a dream?"

"Dude, what if we're just smoke coming from God's bong?"

(You get the idea.)

12/5/2006 9:17:18 PM