Science
Out of context: Reply #335
- Started
- Last post
- 1,014 Responses
- Morning_star0
@ukit2
The multiverse theory just dodges the question. The multiverse still requires a first cause. If you then suggest that there is an infinite number of big bangs and universes then everything and anything is possible. This, however, is all restricted by the limits of human comprehension and our arrogance that we 'can' understand.
The standard model doesn't work. An extended standard model is just a limited theory that tries, and fails, to explain all the naughty phenomena that won't adhere to the rules. Even then, Gravity for instance scuppers the whole deal.
Faith that material scientism, given time, will provide all the answers is no more likely than a dualist solution. Betting the farm on a flawed model isn't particularly scientific and restricting science to the limited bubble of materialism is dogmatic.
You ask "how can mind interact with physical reality if it isn't physical" which is an incredible question and sits right at the heart of the direction science will take in the future. You then proceed to place limits on 'how' it has to be answered undermining the very nature of scientific endeavour.
All I hear are restrictions, stagnant arguments and a rejection of discovery. The spirit of science is in a bad way.
- Basically your argument is the "god of the gaps". The fact that science doesn't currently explain everything doesn't make your much-less-likely theory more credible.
http://en.wikipedia.…ukit2 - much-less-likely theory more credible.ukit2
- The idea of materialism vs. non materialism is a really old one, but just because it has been around as a meme in culture and religion doesn't mean there is any good basis for it as a scientific argument.ukit2
- religion doesn't mean there is any good basis for it as a scientific argument.ukit2
- I'm just saying there are gaps, i'm not putting god, science or the flying spaghetti monster there. There's as much argument on here for 'scientism' of the gaps. I hear again and again 'just because science doesn't know now, doesn't mean it won't know in the future'. It cant be valid for one argument and not the other.Morning_star
- on here for 'scientism' of the gaps. I hear again and again 'just because science doesn't know now, doesn't mean it won't know in the future'. It cant be valid for one argument and not the other.Morning_star
- in the future'. It cant be a valid argument for one position and not the other.Morning_star
- It's reasonable to think that methods that helped us understand the world in the past will help us in the futureukit2
- Whereas "dualism"...there's nothing supporting that at all. It's an old idea that came from religion and superstition.ukit2
- I wouldn't be surprised if science gets completely turned upside down (again) at some point. I'd be very surprised if the answer was some superstitious concept people came up with centuries ago.ukit2
- aligns with some superstitious concept people came up with centuries ago.ukit2
- Basically your argument is the "god of the gaps". The fact that science doesn't currently explain everything doesn't make your much-less-likely theory more credible.