Total Posts:236|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

10 dogmas of modern materialist science

ark200
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 12:49:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That depends, have you observed anything that contradicts any of these claims?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 5:58:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:49:57 AM, drhead wrote:
That depends, have you observed anything that contradicts any of these claims?

Have you observed anything that confirms any of these claims?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:06:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:49:57 AM, drhead wrote:
That depends, have you observed anything that contradicts any of these claims?

http://i.walmartimages.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 10:11:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
None of your list are dogmas. Everything in the below list is either a testable theory for which we currently do not know of any exceptions or is the simplest explanation that works and therefore there is no reason to add additional complexity to form a different solution when there is no evidence of that additional complexity.

1) Everything is essentially mechanical

I guess the implication here is everything can be explained by physics. Sure, the goal of science is to explain everything through physical terms.

2) All matter is unconscious

There is no evidence this is not the case. We can reduce all matter down to a few elementary particles. There is no reason to believe these elementary particles have consciousness.

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

Testable theory that is tested all the time.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

We test scientific theories all the time to see if they change. If we see changes over time then we might have to examine the idea that they aren't fixed but so far we haven't seen them change over time. The only other case would be they changed over time but are now fixed. Science assumes this isn't the case but is well aware of that assumption.

5) Nature is purposeless

There is no evidence there is a purpose therefore the baseline condition would be it has no purpose.

6) All biological inheritence is material.

This is constantly examined by science.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 12:53:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 5:58:58 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:49:57 AM, drhead wrote:
That depends, have you observed anything that contradicts any of these claims?

Have you observed anything that confirms any of these claims?

Open-minded one moment, close-minded the next. I agree that there's much dogma to modern science, though. To quote Vonnegut:

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."

Haha, he's so awesome because he wrote that, but doesn't realize that he falls prey to it himself, and in monstrous fashion.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 2:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

If you want something without any faith, talk to Descartes.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 2:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 2:27:01 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

If you want something without any faith, talk to Descartes.

I just might.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 5:33:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Science is the opposite of faith.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 5:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

Well, you could say that. Being accurate in making such a declaration, well, that is a different matter. Claims of faith in science by laypeople, seem to vastly outnumber actual instances of faith in science by a wide margin -- for what I imagine are mostly ideological reasons. Still, you could say it.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:39:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, you're both wrong. The nonexistence of God is something often stressed amongst those in the scientific community, and that's nothing but faith, but a dream. This dude has rather touched upon with his 10.

Science, the procedure, is in opposition to faith - sure. But it's not all procedure, is it? Plenty of hypotheses and solid belief in those hypotheses thrown in.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:50:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

I mean you still gotta assume that this is not all just a dream, right? :D
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think we're in dire need of reconciling science with religion as an aspiring sociologist anyway. I think that we need to regress society somewhat and get really back to basics. What ya think?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:11:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

Science neither favors nor opposes faith. Science as a methodology cannot operate via faith. Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 6:52:30 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I think we're in dire need of reconciling science with religion as an aspiring sociologist anyway. I think that we need to regress society somewhat and get really back to basics. What ya think?

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Religion as a system of values can coexist with science, however where the two seem to conflict is where religion offers explanations of the origins of some facet of the natural world that is contradicted by the scientific explanation of that same thing. Religion offers both values and explanations whereas science only offers explanations. The overlap here is where the two typically clash. Some have sought to reconcile the difference by letting religion offer values and science offer explanations, outside of this the two are going to continue to conflict with one another.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 7:11:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

Science neither favors nor opposes faith. Science as a methodology cannot operate via faith. Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept.

And that's a lovely set definition you have there, but how adhered to do you think it is? Right across the board by every scientist? I don't think by very many at all, dude.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 7:22:47 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:52:30 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I think we're in dire need of reconciling science with religion as an aspiring sociologist anyway. I think that we need to regress society somewhat and get really back to basics. What ya think?

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Religion as a system of values can coexist with science, however where the two seem to conflict is where religion offers explanations of the origins of some facet of the natural world that is contradicted by the scientific explanation of that same thing. Religion offers both values and explanations whereas science only offers explanations. The overlap here is where the two typically clash. Some have sought to reconcile the difference by letting religion offer values and science offer explanations, outside of this the two are going to continue to conflict with one another.

I like it.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:39:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 7:34:27 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:11:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

Science neither favors nor opposes faith. Science as a methodology cannot operate via faith. Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept.

And that's a lovely set definition you have there, but how adhered to do you think it is? Right across the board by every scientist? I don't think by very many at all, dude.

I cannot speak on the opinions of scientists on issues outside of science.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 7:41:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 7:39:12 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:34:27 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:11:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

Science neither favors nor opposes faith. Science as a methodology cannot operate via faith. Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept.

And that's a lovely set definition you have there, but how adhered to do you think it is? Right across the board by every scientist? I don't think by very many at all, dude.

I cannot speak on the opinions of scientists on issues outside of science.

Seems like something that would be of concern to a sociologist, though.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:35:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:11:25 AM, Floid wrote:
None of your list are dogmas.

Many are strictly philosophical beliefs that many people adhere to dogmatically.

Everything in the below list is either a testable theory for which we currently do not know of any exceptions or is the simplest explanation that works and therefore there is no reason to add additional complexity to form a different solution when there is no evidence of that additional complexity.

So you drank the Kool Aid of Scientism, that"s fine, but don"t try to call it science, it isn"t.

1) Everything is essentially mechanical

I guess the implication here is everything can be explained by physics. Sure, the goal of science is to explain everything through physical terms.

Laplace"s determinism and Newton"s mechanistic model haven"t defined physics for over a hundred years.

2) All matter is unconscious

There is no evidence this is not the case. We can reduce all matter down to a few elementary particles. There is no reason to believe these elementary particles have consciousness.

Human beings are an organization of matter and I"m not sure about you, but I know for a fact that I"m conscious.

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

Testable theory that is tested all the time.

Nonsense, there"s no way to test the total amount of energy and matter.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

We test scientific theories all the time to see if they change. If we see changes over time then we might have to examine the idea that they aren't fixed but so far we haven't seen them change over time. The only other case would be they changed over time but are now fixed. Science assumes this isn't the case but is well aware of that assumption.

Hume demonstrated conclusively that any logical attempt to justify this belief is circular, it"s an axiom of science, not a conclusion of science.

5) Nature is purposeless

There is no evidence there is a purpose

There are plenty of observations of purposeful activity in nature; life, human beings, thought, logic and reason are all teleological in nature.

therefore the baseline condition would be it has no purpose.

Science, by its very nature, methodically restricts itself to efficient causes alone; Aristotle"s final cause is methodologically outside the scope of science. "Purposeless" is not a conclusion of science and any inference that nature is purposeless cannot possibly be categorized as scientific.

6) All biological inheritence is material.

This is constantly examined by science.

Yes, and it"s constantly been found to be explanatorily insufficient.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

Nonsense, there"s plenty of evidence otherwise.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

There"s a boatload of evidence otherwise, animals without brains such as single celled organisms and worms exhibit memory and learned behavior, and there is strong evidence that there is cellular memory as well as memory located in the heart of human beings.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

Discarding observations that don"t fit the model isn"t science.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

There is a lot more to modern medicine than just understanding the mechanisms of disease and interfering with them. The goals of treatment include understanding psychological factors in cause and treatment, environment, social stresses, energy dislocations, and many other external and intangible factors
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:39:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 7:41:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:39:12 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:34:27 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 7:11:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/15/2013 6:47:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Polaris, I saw you make a comment claiming you have a sociology degree and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something actually. And it's relevant I'm pretty sure. Basically I think that all psychology begins with God, and as is only sensible, no? I mean we're all born into the world thinking, "what the f*ck," and that, too, marks the birth of our personal psychologies. And then consider the scientist, and this dude with his purported dogmas of science, and how we're all oh-so controlling in pretty much everything about our lives...... and, well, are you sure science is in complete opposition to faith?

Science neither favors nor opposes faith. Science as a methodology cannot operate via faith. Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept.

And that's a lovely set definition you have there, but how adhered to do you think it is? Right across the board by every scientist? I don't think by very many at all, dude.

I cannot speak on the opinions of scientists on issues outside of science.

Seems like something that would be of concern to a sociologist, though.

I cannot speak on it because there is no definitive data, none that I am aware of.
ark200
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:11:25 AM, Floid wrote:
None of your list are dogmas. Everything in the below list is either a testable theory for which we currently do not know of any exceptions or is the simplest explanation that works and therefore there is no reason to add additional complexity to form a different solution when there is no evidence of that additional complexity.

1) Everything is essentially mechanical

I guess the implication here is everything can be explained by physics. Sure, the goal of science is to explain everything through physical terms.

2) All matter is unconscious

There is no evidence this is not the case. We can reduce all matter down to a few elementary particles. There is no reason to believe these elementary particles have consciousness.

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

Testable theory that is tested all the time.


4) The laws of nature are fixed.

We test scientific theories all the time to see if they change. If we see changes over time then we might have to examine the idea that they aren't fixed but so far we haven't seen them change over time. The only other case would be they changed over time but are now fixed. Science assumes this isn't the case but is well aware of that assumption.

5) Nature is purposeless

There is no evidence there is a purpose therefore the baseline condition would be it has no purpose.


6) All biological inheritence is material.

This is constantly examined by science.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

watch this:
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 6:56:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

I agree, but for those who choke on 'faith', how about 'assumption' instead? There is a whole lot of assumption to science. Like the assumption that we can think; which is a pretty astonishing assumption, if you think about it.
This space for rent.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 7:03:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess the implication here is everything can be explained by physics. Sure, the goal of science is to explain everything through physical terms.

Laplace"s determinism and Newton"s mechanistic model haven"t defined physics for over a hundred years.

Right, we have more advanced physics models now. And what will "define physics" 100 years from now probably isn't what we have today.

2) All matter is unconscious

There is no evidence this is not the case. We can reduce all matter down to a few elementary particles. There is no reason to believe these elementary particles have consciousness.

Human beings are an organization of matter and I"m not sure about you, but I know for a fact that I"m conscious.

Right, but in science when we aren't talking about biological organisms.

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

Testable theory that is tested all the time.

Nonsense, there"s no way to test the total amount of energy and matter.

Sure there is and scientist do it all the time. We have tested the energy and matter before and after physical, chemical, nuclear and subatomic reactions.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

We test scientific theories all the time to see if they change. If we see changes over time then we might have to examine the idea that they aren't fixed but so far we haven't seen them change over time. The only other case would be they changed over time but are now fixed. Science assumes this isn't the case but is well aware of that assumption.

Hume demonstrated conclusively that any logical attempt to justify this belief is circular, it"s an axiom of science, not a conclusion of science.

Hume discussed uniformity of nature of which this is just a part (you also have the location component). But this ignores the fact that science doesn't deal in absolute truth and that science embraces its limitations. So we can say science operates on the assumptions that the laws don't change over time (of which it can do some very localized tests to reinforce) and the laws don't change based on where in the universe you are located (also reinforced by very localized tests). But this is far from dogma because dogma requires absolute adherence based on authority.

5) Nature is purposeless

There is no evidence there is a purpose

There are plenty of observations of purposeful activity in nature; life, human beings, thought, logic and reason are all teleological in nature.

Surely you are aware of what the statement "Nature has purpose" would mean. It has nothing to do with purposeful activity in nature.

6) All biological inheritence is material.

This is constantly examined by science.

Yes, and it"s constantly been found to be explanatorily insufficient.

Please explain areas for which it is insufficient.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

Nonsense, there"s plenty of evidence otherwise.

Like?

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

There"s a boatload of evidence otherwise, animals without brains such as single celled organisms and worms exhibit memory and learned behavior, and there is strong evidence that there is cellular memory as well as memory located in the heart of human beings.

I believe single celled organisms "learning" has all been through biological adaptation and worms do have nervous systems which include ganglia (a nerve bundle) that acts as a simple brain. If you would like to present some evidence for everyone it would be interesting to discuss.

There is no strong evidence of cellular memory, this is generally used in pseudo scientific fields of psychology to explain repressed memories and the like. But as before, please present you evidence of this phenomenon.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

Please provide a scientific test in which telepathy was demonstrated. Every controlled test of telepathy I have ever seen failed.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

Also constantly examined but we have never found evidence otherwise.

There is a lot more to modern medicine than just understanding the mechanisms of disease and interfering with them. The goals of treatment include understanding psychological factors in cause and treatment, environment, social stresses, energy dislocations, and many other external and intangible factors

Right, but if you have cancer there is a known set of mechanistic medicine techniques that demonstrably work. If the person also needs psychological help to deal with the stress that is another factor but I don't think that is keeping within the spirit of the OPs point.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 7:39:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Everything on that list seems right to me...

That's because you're an idiot.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 7:41:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 6:56:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:57:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/15/2013 12:48:30 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:48:17 PM, ark200 wrote:
1) Everything is essentially mechanical

2) All matter is unconscious

3) The total amount of energy and matter is always the same.

4) The laws of nature are fixed.

5) Nature is purposeless

6) All biological inheritence is material.

7) Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activity of brains.

8) Memory is stored in material traces of the brain.

9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works.

are these dogmas or realities?

A few general points here. The fact that something has not been found to be true through scientific methodology, does not necessitate that the inverse is a dogma. All answers in science are tentative. X is observed, therefore X is regarded as true until found otherwise. Your puerile insistence that science has not found your belief in Y to be true, therefore science is dogmatic that ~Y is true, is incredibly silly and a self-centered way of thinking.

Maybe dogma isn't the right word then. How about if we said there was a whole lot of faith to modern science.

I agree, but for those who choke on 'faith', how about 'assumption' instead? There is a whole lot of assumption to science. Like the assumption that we can think; which is a pretty astonishing assumption, if you think about it.

I think 'faith' hits closer to home.