Steven, Your characterization of our discussion is not correct. The question I put, and to which you responded by claiming that I was "name calling", was this: "Why is post-scientific a better characterization than unscientific of the sentence our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects." ? I've made a reasonable effort to answer to your request that I show how I parse the sentence in question vis-à-vis a judgement "scientific", "unscientific", "post-scientific", only to be met (repeatedly) by your belittling of my "opinions", and your saying that I indulge in "name calling", so I see no way forward from here.
As for your overall claim, that "Materialism is the view that our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects." I have a request. Could you name a philosopher who claims to be a materialist, and who would assert "Materialism is the view that our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects." ? For example, that isn't even nearly the view of materialism outlined at http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html Drake > From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith > > I am not following you. I simply said, in full, that "Materialism is the view that > our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important > respects." You appear to have a workable understanding of the sentence > along with some strong opinions, we appear superficially to agree, but I am > afraid that I miss your point. > > I expected an explanation of why the sentence is not a valid criticism of > materialism. > > With respect, > Steven > > > > > On Aug 18, 2011, at 1:32 PM, vony wrote: > > >> From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith > >> Dear Drake, > >> > >> You said: > >>> I repeat, to my mind the assertion is absurd, and it plays no part > >>> whatsoever in how I understand the doctrine of "materialism". > >> > >> > >> This was not clear to me before from what you have said. Perhaps you > >> can explain why. > >> > > > > Steven, > > I've explained, but you snipped past that. > > > > Putting my explanation another way, the sentence "our understanding > > of the physical world is complete in all important respects" has a > > caveat, "in all important respects", which makes it virtually > > unfalsifiable since (1) "all important respects" is indefinite and > > hence subjective, yet (2) the understanding the sentence purports to > > speak of is "scientific understanding". If we eliminate that caveat, > > the sentence becomes false - since our understanding of the physical > > world deepens and broadens every day. However, unlike unfalsifiable > > hypotheses which posit the existence of an invisible, unknowable, > > omniscient, ... God, which given that context I wouldn't call "absurd", this > hypothesis doesn't purport to be religious. > > Since it purports to somehow be explanatory of our understanding of > > science or the state of scientific theory when in fact there's > > nothing whatsoever scientific or empirical about it, I categorize it as being > simply absurd. > > > > Drake > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
