Mod+ 262. WILL STORR ON THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE

Alex is as convinced of his view as the materialists are of theirs.
Dominic's point (as I understand it) is that anger and dismissal and insults etc will not help.
Such will only push both sides into entrenched defensive positions and close down the discussion.
I agree with him.
 
The entrenchment lies with the fundamentalist materialists, and the militant skeptics that are religiously active with their materialistic faith right now.

Open minded scientists are the ones who are still moving forward with scientific research regarding NDEs, or consciousness studies, that invariably has led to the empirical knowledge of well known and well established unconscious & conscious phenomena including psi.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Alex is as convinced of his view as the materialists are of theirs.
Dominic's point (as I understand it) is that anger and dismissal and insults etc will not help.
Such will only push both sides into entrenched defensive positions and close down the discussion.
I agree with him.

Yeah, pretty much. Here's an analogy. Imagine that I start a new show called Capitalism, and I define capitalism as an unfair economic system where the workers are exploited and alienated and the only thing that matters is money. I then say, "Hey, come on everybody, let's have a fair and open discussion about capitalism. I'm a friendly guy."

But of course I've already shut down the debate, and there will never be a fair and open discussion about capitalism. I already know that anybody who supports the system has to be ignorant, crazy or evil.

Skeptiko does the same thing with materialism. Rather than giving a neutral definition of materialism, it uses the most negative and insulting language possible, thereby ending the debate before it even gets started.
 
The entrenchment lies with the fundamentalist materialists, and the militant skeptics that are religiously active with their materialistic faith right now.

Open minded scientists are the ones who are still moving forward with scientific research regarding NDEs, or consciousness studies, that invariably has led to the empirical knowledge of well known and well established unconscious & conscious phenomena including psi.

My Best,
Bertha

I agree that many materialists are dogmatic and have behaved badly, but this has nothing to do with the point I'm making here.

The question is, is it fair to describe and define materialism in the way Skeptiko does? All the materialists I know think that love, meaning, purpose, conscious experience, etc. last for 80 years or whatever and then vanish forever when you die. So how is it fair to say that these things just don't exist on the materialist world view?
 
It's true that most materialists don't understand the consequences of their beliefs and don't want to hear how absurd their beliefs are when viewed in light of those consequences. The fact that they shut down the conversation makes it impossible to communicate with them on that subject. Then what is the point of having a conversation where the other side sets the ground rules? What is the point of talking to "make nice" like you are baby sitting a four year old child? Many materialists are nice people and have a lot of interesting things to say, but there is no point in talking with them about consciousness.

Asserting that consciousness emerges without demonstrating an explanation of how it emerges is begging the question, or, as Nobe Prize winning neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles called promissory materialism: superstition. Materialists don't want to hear that either.
agreed! the problem with all this talk about worldview is that we come to accept is as a necessary or even desirable thing rather than something we should be leery/skeptical of... even in ourselves.

paraphrasing a Zen poem:
明鏡亦非台 My worldview bright is nowhere shining;
本夾無一物 As there is nothing from the first,
何處惹塵埃 Where can the dust itself collect?
 
I agree that many materialists are dogmatic and have behaved badly, but this has nothing to do with the point I'm making here.

The question is, is it fair to describe and define materialism in the way Skeptiko does? All the materialists I know think that love, meaning, purpose, conscious experience, etc. last for 80 years or whatever and then vanish forever when you die. So how is it fair to say that these things just don't exist on the materialist world view?
because this is logically inconsistent.
 
because this is logically inconsistent.

Yes it is. One view can be called emergentist materialism, and the other can be called eliminativist materialism, and it's logically inconsistent to hold both at the same time.

If we're being charitable and generous, then we'll say that the strongest and most plausible form of materialism out there is really emergentist materialism. I also happen to think that this is what most materialists actually believe, even though they may not be familiar with the philosophical jargon.

This distinction also helps us with something else. People often say that nobody is really a materialist in their everyday life. But what they should say is that nobody is really an eliminativist materialist in their everyday life.

Eliminativist materialism is absurd, so let's not waste any more time on it. It's emergentist materialism that's very popular among scientists and philosophers today.
 
Last edited:
I think Bertha that you are missing the point Dominic is making...

He is not claiming that some materialists are not dogmatic
He is not defending materialism or materialists
He is referring to discussion
The umbrage and distain you express about materialists is actually what he pointing to
and saying that it tends to predispose us to offensive positions which alienate others and close-down discussion
 
You are so kind David to make your clarification and point out what I was missing. Had no idea I had "distain" for the Richard Dawkin's class of materialists. I guess it happens to be just my luck I am not running a popularity contest, nor does it seem to interest me to carry on some kind of one-way discourse with fundamentalists. Outside of the militant atheist abuse that has been ongoing on Wikipedia and other media outlets, you have an interesting argument - i.e. it isn't the wife beater that is the problem, but the wife who is causing the beating. You got me. Good one!

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
I think Bertha that you are missing the point Dominic is making...

He is not claiming that some materialists are not dogmatic
He is not defending materialism or materialists
He is referring to discussion
The umbrage and distain you express about materialists is actually what he pointing to
and saying that it tends to predispose us to offensive positions which alienate others and close-down discussion

But it's not just about language and tone. I'm not just saying, please be a bit nicer to those materialists. There's actually some deception going on here. Skeptiko tries to give the impression that the dominant paradigm in neuroscience and philosophy of mind today says that there's no conscious experience, meaning, love or value. This is not true. Most of these people think that consciousness somehow magically emerges from a properly functioning brain. Therefore, they think consciousness does exist. In philosophical jargon, they are emergentist materialists, not eliminativist materialists.
 
But it's not just about language and tone. I'm not just saying, please be a bit nicer to those materialists. There's actually some deception going on here. Skeptiko tries to give the impression that the dominant paradigm in neuroscience and philosophy of mind today says that there's no conscious experience, meaning, love or value. This is not true. Most of these people think that consciousness somehow magically emerges from a properly functioning brain. Therefore, they think consciousness does exist. In philosophical jargon, they are emergentist materialists, not eliminativist materialists.

There is no deception going on here at Skeptico or by Alex. What he has stated is logically consistent. But this Carl Sagan talking point you are pushing here - i.e. transcendence is not required to find meaning in the universe and the materialistic creed is all that is sufficient, is philosophical garbage. Almost as non-sensical as Tyson recently making his proclamation that "philosophy is dead."

I doubt Alex or myself will ever believe the Emperor has clothes on like you so want us to believe. Nor is the scientific work that has proceeded in consciousness been predicated on "wishful thinking" which is yet another assinine supposition often made by Carl Sagan materialist acolytes. There is a reason intelligent men have investigated psi and other unusual psychological phenomena, and it is to answer not just the question of origin, but also of destination. Which invariably is swept under the rug and entirely ignored by the materialist creed as not even worthy of respect.

Piece of advice: you want respect, then give it. And refrain from being so fucking condescending.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
There is no deception going on here at Skeptico or by Alex. What he has stated is logically consistent. But this Carl Sagan talking point you are pushing here - i.e. transcendence is not required to find meaning in the universe and the materialistic creed is all that is sufficient, is philosophical garbage. Almost as non-sensical as Tyson recently making his proclamation that "philosophy is dead."

I doubt Alex or myself will ever believe the Emperor has clothes on like you so want us to believe. Nor is the scientific work that has proceeded in consciousness been predicated on "wishful thinking" which is yet another assinine supposition often made by Carl Sagan materialist acolytes. There is a reason intelligent men have investigated psi and other unusual psychological phenomena, and it is to answer not just the question of origin, but also of destination. Which invariably is swept under the rug and entirely ignored by the materialist creed as not even worthy of respect.

Piece of advice: you want respect, then give it. And refrain from being so fucking condescending.

My Best,
Bertha

You're displaying exactly the kind of anger, prejudice and arrogance that I'm worried about. Why bother with all these subtle distinctions, right? We already know that those materialists, atheists and skeptics are all the same. For them, there's no consciousness, meaning, value, freedom or love, end of story. We don't need to listen to them or really try to understand them. We already know all about them.

As Jonathan Haidt discusses in his books, it's often extremely painful and difficult to try to understand what people from opposing world views are really saying. Liberals, for example, think of ethics exclusively in terms of justice and fairness, and they really don't understand what conservatives are talking about when they use terms like sacredness, loyalty and authority in an ethical context. It's so much easier to dismiss them as evil, crazy or ignorant than it is to try to get to grips with their world view in a serious way, and of course people more often than not do the easy thing.

The same thing is happening here. It's easy to make out that all materialists are eliminativists and then dismiss their world view as absurd. Trying to get to grips with what materialists actually believe and why they believe it is hard.
 
Yes it is. One view can be called emergentist materialism, and the other can be called eliminativist materialism, and it's logically inconsistent to hold both at the same time.

If we're being charitable and generous, then we'll say that the strongest and most plausible form of materialism out there is really emergentist materialism. I also happen to think that this is what most materialists actually believe, even though they may not be familiar with the philosophical jargon.

This distinction also helps us with something else. People often say that nobody is really a materialist in their everyday life. But what they should say is that nobody is really an eliminativist materialist in their everyday life.

Eliminativist materialism is absurd, so let's not waste any more time on it. It's emergentist materialism that's very popular among scientists and philosophers today.
see my interview with Bernardo Kastrup... he destroys this kind of strong materialism where we have no idea about the nature of, or actions of, the constitutes yet claim they come together to create something that needs to be explained away... like consciousness.
 
Yeah, pretty much. Here's an analogy. Imagine that I start a new show called Capitalism, and I define capitalism as an unfair economic system where the workers are exploited and alienated and the only thing that matters is money. I then say, "Hey, come on everybody, let's have a fair and open discussion about capitalism. I'm a friendly guy."

But of course I've already shut down the debate, and there will never be a fair and open discussion about capitalism. I already know that anybody who supports the system has to be ignorant, crazy or evil.

Skeptiko does the same thing with materialism. Rather than giving a neutral definition of materialism, it uses the most negative and insulting language possible, thereby ending the debate before it even gets started.

If you've followed the show over the past few years, you'd see that there is no debate anymore for Alex about consciousness being fundamental and the existence of psi. He's literally said as much. He is certain about his position and doesn't seem interested in debating it with people who don't share his view (he still seems to enjoy exposing his critics as idiots occasionally, though). That is Skeptiko 3.0, for better or worse. Expecting it to be Skeptiko 1.0 is a fool's errand.

I agree with you that the show would benefit greatly from less certainty and more genuine interest in understanding those who disagree, but certainty is certainty, and if there is one thing Alex has made abundantly clear over recent years, it is that he is absolutely certain about his position. This complete certainty has not helped make the show more interesting for many of us, but his journey is his journey, and this show has always ultimately always been about Alex and his journey.

I, for one, lost a lot of interest in the show and his message once he became 100% sure of his position...it stopped being an exploration of anything at all at that point (other than exposing the evil edifice of "mainstream science"), but I do understand why it happened...after so many discussions with experts and a thorough examination of the evidence, he became sure he was right. What is left to do with your critics at that point except ignore them or ridicule them? 100% certainty is 100% certainty. It doesn't leave much room for anything else!
 
If you've followed the show over the past few years, you'd see that there is no debate anymore for Alex about consciousness being fundamental and the existence of psi. He's literally said as much. He is certain about his position and doesn't seem interested in debating it with people who don't share his view (he still seems to enjoy exposing his critics as idiots occasionally, though). That is Skeptiko 3.0, for better or worse. Expecting it to be Skeptiko 1.0 is a fool's errand.

I agree with you that the show would benefit greatly from less certainty and more genuine interest in understanding those who disagree, but certainty is certainty, and if there is one thing Alex has made abundantly clear over recent years, it is that he is absolutely certain about his position. This complete certainty has not helped make the show more interesting for many of us, but his journey is his journey, and this show has always ultimately always been about Alex and his journey.

I, for one, lost a lot of interest in the show and his message once he became 100% sure of his position...it stopped being an exploration of anything at all at that point (other than exposing the evil edifice of "mainstream science"), but I do understand why it happened...after so many discussions with experts and a thorough examination of the evidence, he became sure he was right. What is left to do with your critics at that point except ignore them or ridicule them? 100% certainty is 100% certainty. It doesn't leave much room for anything else!
this is silly. I'm very interested in debating with those who have a different view... I'm doing so right now!

take your best shot.
 
see my interview with Bernardo Kastrup... he destroys this kind of strong materialism where we have no idea about the nature of, or actions of, the constitutes yet claim they come together to create something that needs to be explained away... like consciousness.

I would put it like this:

Fair - The dominant paradigm in neuroscience and philosophy of mind today says that consciousness is produced by the brain and cannot exist without it.
Unfair - The dominant paradigm says that there's no conscious experience, meaning, purpose, love or value.

However you look at it, it's wrong to try to make out that materialists are all eliminativists of the craziest sort.

As for whether emergentist materialism is a better theory than idealism, dualism, panpsychism and all the rest, that's a question for the philosophers and it has nothing to do with the points I've been making here.
 
If you've followed the show over the past few years, you'd see that there is no debate anymore for Alex about consciousness being fundamental and the existence of psi. He's literally said as much. He is certain about his position and doesn't seem interested in debating it with people who don't share his view (he still seems to enjoy exposing his critics as idiots occasionally, though). That is Skeptiko 3.0, for better or worse. Expecting it to be Skeptiko 1.0 is a fool's errand.

I agree with you that the show would benefit greatly from less certainty and more genuine interest in understanding those who disagree, but certainty is certainty, and if there is one thing Alex has made abundantly clear over recent years, it is that he is absolutely certain about his position. This complete certainty has not helped make the show more interesting for many of us, but his journey is his journey, and this show has always ultimately always been about Alex and his journey.

I, for one, lost a lot of interest in the show and his message once he became 100% sure of his position...it stopped being an exploration of anything at all at that point (other than exposing the evil edifice of "mainstream science"), but I do understand why it happened...after so many discussions with experts and a thorough examination of the evidence, he became sure he was right. What is left to do with your critics at that point except ignore them or ridicule them? 100% certainty is 100% certainty. It doesn't leave much room for anything else!

Great post, Brooke, but I disagree with you about one thing. I've been listening to the show from the very beginning, and I don't see this journey from genuine openness to certainty. I don't remember any early shows where Alex was like, "Yeah, maybe those atheists and materialists are right. Maybe all our plans, dreams, loves, experiences, emotions and memories vanish into thin air when we die." It seems to me he's been absolutely certain they are wrong from the very start.
 
I would put it like this:

Fair - The dominant paradigm in neuroscience and philosophy of mind today says that consciousness is produced by the brain and cannot exist without it.
Unfair - The dominant paradigm says that there's no conscious experience, meaning, purpose, love or value.

However you look at it, it's wrong to try to make out that materialists are all eliminativists of the craziest sort.

As for whether emergentist materialism is a better theory than idealism, dualism, panpsychism and all the rest, that's a question for the philosophers and it has nothing to do with the points I've been making here.
Ok, but I'm not sure I understand this distinction. I mean, wouldn't one have to sidestep all the NDE/OBE/STE/reincarnation evidence in order to walk this knife's edge of Materialism.

Can you think of a Skeptiko guest that has been unfairly labeled in the way you're talking about?
 
Back
Top