On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> In science if you don't assume materialism then one theory works as >>> well (and as poorly) as any other theory. >>> >> >> > It seems you are confusing materialism with falsifiability. >> > > You sound like Bruno, for the last 3 years in every other post he keeps > telling me that I confuse this peepee thing with that peepee thing. > These are both well-defined and widely known concepts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Maybe wikipedia should tag them as "pee pee things"? I don't know. I assume you accept wikipedia as a reasonable gauge of the credibility of terms, given that you keep using it to make fun of Bruno. > But never mind, in order for me to falsify your theory I've got to show > that the numbers I come up with in my lab don't match the numbers your > theory predicts, but everything in my lab is material so if your theory is > non-material there is nothing I can do. > Mater doesn't have to be fundamental for your lab to work. We can do the verification while remaining agnostic on other hypothesis (as matter being fundamental). Without the ability to test hypothesis independently, science would have been vastly less successful. > For example, if your theory is that the planets move in their orbits > because invisible angels push them in a way that is identical to Newton's > laws then I can't prove it wrong, > Correct, but then this theory in unfalsifiable and thus not a valid scientific theory. We agree, you just have an allergy for certain terminology. I gave up a long ago on trying to figure out what terminology you find acceptable or not, or for what reasons. > but if your theory says the angels are visible then it is falsifiable > because then it would be material, then it would interact with > electromagnetic waves. Even Dark Matter is a materialistic theory, yes Dark > Matter doesn't emit or absorb electromagnetic waves but it does change its > trajectory, and this change in light can be detected by material > telescopes, but angels that do nothing but mimic Newton's laws can't be. > I think you misunderstand what materialism means. The non-materialistic stance does not require denying the phenomenology of matter. It just requires denying that matter is fundamental and that everything (including consciousness) is a byproduct of fundamental particles interacting. Science does not require mater to be fundamental. It just requires the universe to behave in some predictable fashion, independently of what the universe is. I am still waiting for your comment on this, by the way: > > That's why all non-materialistic theories of consciousness are such a > colossal waste of time, they're so bad they're not even wrong. > Just like the materialistic ones. Telmo. > John K Clark > > > > >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
