Materialism is Self-Refuting

[reggieM]

Please let me know what you think about this argument – does it follow logically and consistently? Thanks.

1. In order for materialism to be true, all of reality must be reducible to matter (to the atomic and sub-atomic level).
2. Physics is the study of matter and the interactions of matter from the sub-atomic level upwards.
3. If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.
4. Scientism is the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.
5. In order for materialism to be true, scientism must be true.
6. But scientism is self-refuting.
7. Therefore, materialism is false.

 

[Rocinante]

Please let me know what you think about this argument – does it follow logically and consistently? Thanks.

1. In order for materialism to be true, all of reality must be reducible to matter (to the atomic and sub-atomic level).
2. Physics is the study of matter and the interactions of matter from the sub-atomic level upwards.
3. If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.
4. Scientism is the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.
5. In order for materialism to be true, scientism must be true.
6. But scientism is self-refuting.
7. Therefore, materialism is false.

you defined ,materialism as the notion that “all of reality must be reducible to matter.” what do you mean by “is reducible to”? if you mean something like “can be described in terms of…” then i would call myself a materialist. saying so does not mean that such descriptions are always the most relevant. it just says that such descriptions can be made.

“5.” is not obviously (to me) true. can you explain why you think so?

 

[reggieM]

you defined ,materialism as the notion that “all of reality must be reducible to matter.” what do you mean by “is reducible to”? if you mean something like “can be described in terms of…” then i would call myself a materialist. saying so does not mean that such descriptions are always the most relevant. it just says that such descriptions can be made.

Ok but not just “described” but rather “explained by”. Reducible means that when you trace back the causal chain, you end up with matter and energy at the lowest level.
Thus, everything in the universe is ultimately a product of matter.

If true, then everything is definable and explainable in terms of physics. We observe the atomic and molecular activity of everything and thus can potentially understand its entire existence. That’s what materialism is.

“5.” is not obviously (to me) true. can you explain why you think so?

5 is true because if there was anything that could not be comprehended through science, then it would be something non-reducible to the laws of physics – and thus, non-material.

 

[_Locke]

I agree with Rocinante, your weak point is 5. The belief that “science is the sole source of knowledge about reality” is not necessary to the position that all things are composed of matter.

The argument is essentially: “Scientism is false. Therefore whatever I conflate with scientism is also false.” Let’s not forget that “scientism” is just a relatively recent pejorative term.

 

[reggieM]

The properties and interactions of matter are the subject of science.

If all things are composed of matter, then all things can be explained by science.

Why does that not follow logically?

 

[Rocinante]

Ok but not just “described” but rather “explained by”. Reducible means that when you trace back the causal chain, you end up with matter and energy at the lowest level.
Thus, everything in the universe is ultimately a product of matter.

what you are talking about then is not materialism but materialism taken with a large dose of reductionism. why should we think that explanations on the subatomic level are more to the point than ones at higher levels? which level of understanding will depend on your purposes in inquiry.

If true, then everything is definable and explainable in terms of physics. We observe the atomic and molecular activity of everything and thus can potentially understand its entire existence. That’s what materialism is.

5 is true because if there was anything that could not be comprehended through science, then it would be something non-reducible to the laws of physics – and thus, non-material.

to say that all knowledge comes from science becomes problematic only when you give a narrow reductionist view of science. if science is taken in the broadest sense of our best efforts at rational inquiry then it is a truism to say that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. in that sense “scientific” is just a compliment we pay to the results of our best practices of inquiry that yield results that can be confirmed by other inquirers.

 

[reggieM]

why should we think that explanations on the subatomic level are more to the point than ones at higher levels?

Because that’s how a causal chain works.

We observe material effect E. What caused it?
E was caused by the combination of materials C & D.
What caused C & D?
They were caused by the chemical reactions of B and thus understood in origin from A.

So, science provides the causal chain from the atomic level A through observed result E.

There is no other knowledge to bring to this issue. Science explains it completely.

 

[lemondiesel]

1. If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.
2. Scientism is the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.
3. In order for materialism to be true, scientism must be true.
4. But scientism is self-refuting.
5. Therefore, materialism is false.

1. I think it is more that science alone can obtain an interpretion of reality, but it does not provide a true understanding. A true understanding would require observing the initial cause, which for us, is impossible.
2. Knowledge is interpretation, so scientism is true, but it is always changing.
3. If this makes sense, I would say in order for scientism to be true, materialism must be true.
4. And materialism is observable
5. Therefore, scientism is plausible, rather than impossible

 

[tonyrey]

1. I think it is more that science alone can obtain an interpretation of reality, but it does not provide a true understanding.

Since science explains only a part of reality there must be a fuller explanation…

!A true understanding would require observing the initial cause, which for us, is impossible.

Very true!

1. Knowledge is interpretation, so scientism is true, but it is always changing.

Not all knowledge is interpretation. We have **direct knowledge **of our thoughts and feelings.

1. If this makes sense, I would say in order for scientism to be true, materialism must be true.

True!

1. And materialism is observable

Materialism cannot be observed because it’s a theory!

1. Therefore, scientism is plausible, rather than impossible.

I think it’s impossible because the **theory **of materialism cannot be observed…

 

[tonyrey]

what you are talking about then is not materialism but materialism taken with a large dose of reductionism. why should we think that explanations on the subatomic level are more to the point than ones at higher levels? which level of understanding will depend on your purposes in inquiry.

How do you know that the higher levels of explanation are derived from the subatomic level?

to say that all knowledge comes from science becomes problematic only when you give a narrow reductionist view of science. if science is taken in the broadest sense of our best efforts at rational inquiry then it is a truism to say that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. in that sense “scientific” is just a compliment we pay to the results of our best practices of inquiry that yield results that can be confirmed by other inquirers.

That is not the usual sense! If it were, philosophy would be scientific! As science is based on epistemological, i.e. rational and logical, principles it cannot explain them…

 

[lemondiesel]

Since science explains only a part of reality there must be a fuller explanation…

Science explains what and how, is there even a purpose to ask Why?

Materialism cannot be observed because it’s a theory!

Even if we exclude consciousness (for the moment), would it not be observable? Or if we exclude consciousness, does the theory no longer remain Materialism?

I think it’s impossible because the **theory **of materialism cannot be observed…

This is where consciousness comes back. If consciousness is a product, Materialism provides the ability to observe. Basically, Materialism is everything, and eventually, evolution creates a being that can observe this everything.

But that might be off topic now, just the thoughts that first came to my head

 

[reggieM]

This is where consciousness comes back. If consciousness is a product, Materialism provides the ability to observe. Basically, Materialism is everything, and eventually, evolution creates a being that can observe this everything.D

That seems right. If materialism is true, then we can in theory observe everything and measure everything by science.

 

[reggieM]

I’m surprised that nobody questioned point #6 because that was not proved by this syllogism (another argument is needed to prove that).

 

[_Locke]

I’m surprised that nobody questioned point #6 because that was not proved by this syllogism (another argument is needed to prove that).

The argument hardly makes it past the first couple points. Plus I think the use of the word “scientism” is usually merely a mischaracterization by the religious; as Daniel Dennet puts it “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism’”. I’d never heard of the term until I joined this forum; I don’t think it’s a position (as you defined it) that many people hold or care about.

If you’d like I can do a more in-depth critique of this argument, perhaps after it’s reformulated a bit.

 

[Pieman333272]

The argument hardly makes it past the first couple points. Plus I think the use of the word “scientism” is usually merely a mischaracterization by the religious; as Daniel Dennet puts it “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism’”. I’d never heard of the term until I joined this forum; I don’t think it’s a position that many hold or care about.

If you’d like I can do a more in-depth critique of this argument, perhaps after it’s reformulated a bit.

I never heard of it either. I think “scientism” refers to either:

A) The belief science can answer all questions of all types
B) The use of science, theoretical or otherwise, as a direct assault against religion (as opposed to studying neutrally and making the OBSERVATION it possibly contradicts a religion’s views)

I’ve read some of Dennett’s work for materialism, he’s a fine philosopher but I can’t help but think he misinterprets or over-simplifies certain concepts in support of dualism.

 

[AntiTheist]

The properties and interactions of matter are the subject of science.

If all things are composed of matter, then all things can be explained by science.

Why does that not follow logically?

The problem here is the phrase “all things,” which is hopelessly vague.

The domain of science is the physical world. It tells us what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. Any subject beyond questions of “what stuff is,” “what stuff is made of,” and “how stuff works” is beyond the ability of science to comment on. For example, should I have a steak for dinner or should I eat fish? What’s the “scientific” position on this particular “thing?”

The fact of the matter is that lots and lots and lots of subjects exist outside of the domain of science – but not because these subjects deal with things that aren’t ultimately reducible to matter. It’s because these subjects concern topics other than the physical make up and function of stuff.

In the example I gave, the question of what I want to eat is decided by values, not by some kind of scientific experiment. Now, scientific investigations can tell us all kinds of stuff about the composition of my body, the structure of my brain (which influences my desires), and the process by which my experiences and inclinations inform my decisions, but science, in and of itself, doesn’t exist to answer the question of what I should eat.

The silly pejorative “scientism” describes a position that no person actually holds. It’s a strawman, and a pretty silly one at that.

 

[reggieM]

The argument hardly makes it past the first couple points. Plus I think the use of the word “scientism” is usually merely a mischaracterization by the religious; as Daniel Dennet puts it “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism’”. I’d never heard of the term until I joined this forum; I don’t think it’s a position (as you defined it) that many people hold or care about.

I’m surprised that you had never heard the term before. A quick Google search gives me over 400 thousand references. Google scholar gives 34,000 academic papers using the term.

 

[reggieM]

I never heard of it either. I think “scientism” refers to either:

A) The belief science can answer all questions of all types
B) The use of science, theoretical or otherwise, as a direct assault against religion (as opposed to studying neutrally and making the OBSERVATION it possibly contradicts a religion’s views)

I’ve read some of Dennett’s work for materialism, he’s a fine philosopher but I can’t help but think he misinterprets or over-simplifies certain concepts in support of dualism.

A Google search gives a number of references to the term, with definitions.
Daniel Dennett’s claim that the word is used only by religious critics (if he said that) doesn’t stand. It’s a philosophical term that has been in use for a long time – and it represents a philosophical position that is quite common.

In the argument I presented, the term is not even essential to the point since you can make the same argument without using the word “scientism”.

 

[reggieM]

not because these subjects deal with things that aren’t ultimately reducible to matter.

If these things are ultimately reducible to matter, then they fall within the domain of science to explain them.

 

[reggieM]

Daniel Dennett’s claim that the word is used only by religious critics (if he said that) …

I guess he did say that. I just found the quote on the Wikipedia site which explains the common usage of the term “scientism” and that one of the most prominent atheists in the world, Michael Shermer, describes himself as “scientistic”. He defines the term as “a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.”

Interesting coincidence. I must have been the only one to look at the Wikipedia listing, otherwise I wouldn’t have heard the claim that “nobody actually holds” the term.