2. Why does it appear to be such a negative thing to proclaim yourself to have a healthy yet skeptical viewpoint?
Or insisting that anyone who is a "materialist" must be immoral or an idiot.Very few would consider this negative at all. The only problem arises when someone resolutely refuses to believe any experiment or evidence that doesn't agree with their prejudices. For example, just insisting that anyone producing positive evidence for ψ must be cheating or be half witted.
I suspect it's because some who call themselves skeptics are really cynics :)1. Can I add a link to this forum/site on my website?
2. Why does it appear to be such a negative thing to proclaim yourself to have a healthy yet skeptical viewpoint?
If I'm asking these in the wrong place, tell me to shut up lol :D
Well, I don't think there's many people around here that thinks that any "materialist" is one of those things. The attention is typically focused on a number of well selected, very vocal and definitely over-the-top materialists that fit very comfortably in the second category. :)Or insisting that anyone who is a "materialist" must be immoral or an idiot.
2. Why does it appear to be such a negative thing to proclaim yourself to have a healthy yet skeptical viewpoint?
If I'm asking these in the wrong place, tell me to shut up lol :D
I don't think that is happening Paul. I think what Alex and others are getting at is that Skeptiko really is a place for open minded debate. Any one who refuses to concede that there are many things which have been studied and verified as real that entirely defy, and in fact undermine the materialist paradigm, can I suppose be said to be dogmatic. I am not saying that these anomolous findings ought to lead one to a complete abandonment of materialist leanings, but an admission and acceptance that holes may be beginning to form in it's promise of one day being able to account for all phenomena. Or a realistic appreciation of the limits of materialism's explanatory ability.Or insisting that anyone who is a "materialist" must be immoral or an idiot.
~~ Paul
When the day comes that I think these things are true, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, since immaterialism has no explanation for these things either, shall we pronounce some immaterialists to be dogmatic?I don't think that is happening Paul. I think what Alex and others are getting at is that Skeptiko really is a place for open minded debate. Any one who refuses to concede that there are many things which have been studied and verified as real that entirely defy, and in fact undermine the materialist paradigm, can I suppose be said to be dogmatic. I am not saying that these anomolous findings ought to lead one to a complete abandonment of materialist leanings, but an admission and acceptance that holes may be beginning to form in it's promise of one day being able to account for all phenomena. Or a realistic appreciation of the limits of materialism's explanatory ability.
When did I ever suggest that further study should cease?f one's faith in materialism means that they cannot accept at face value that anything at all from the vast warehouse of studies that have been thoroughly and scientifically investigated by countless respected researchers and published in peer reviewed journals is a valid and real phenomena worthy of further investigation, well, this can seriously stifle discussion, so I see Alex's point. It becomes an almost religious affair.
This means the same as what you said:When the day comes that I think these things are true, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, since immaterialism has no explanation for these things either, shall we pronounce some immaterialists to be dogmatic?
When did I ever suggest that further study should cease?
~~ Paul
When the day comes that I think these things are true, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, since immaterialism has no explanation for these things either, shall we pronounce some immaterialists to be dogmatic?
When did I ever suggest that further study should cease?
~~ Paul
When the day comes that I think these things are true, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, since immaterialism has no explanation for these things either, shall we pronounce some immaterialists to be dogmatic?
I
When did I ever suggest that further study should cease?
~~ Paul
Huh?This means the same as what you said:
When the day comes that I acknowledge these things are true, I'll be happy to think it.
Alternatives to materialism are forms of immaterialism. So you're saying you have an immaterial science that offers explanations? What is the explanation for consciousness?what on earth is 'immaterialism' lol?. :D There are many alternatives to materialism, e.g. A form of Idealism is a viable alternative which DOES offer very valid explanations for all natural phenomena as well as what we currently call 'para' natural (because of the materialist paradigm.
oh right back at you buddy. What is the explanation for matter?Alternatives to materialism are forms of immaterialism. So you're saying you have an immaterial science that offers explanations? What is the explanation for consciousness?
~~ Paul
Ah, so the explanation for full-blown human consciousness is "it just exists." Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you find this any more satisfying than the explanation of consciousness under physicalism.oh right back at you buddy. What is the explanation for matter?