Materialism is Self-Refuting

[_Locke]

"reggieM:

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.

If you look through the results, you’ll find most of the regular Google results are in relation to religion, and I don’t often search Google Scholar for terms I don’t know exist.

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.

Now you defined scientism as “the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.” This is the definition we’re using, and is most definitely not what Michael Shermer describes as “scientistic.” You might find the skeptic’s dictionary helpful:
skepdic.com/scientism.html
What Shermer describes his world view might be called scientism in the weak sense, but it most definitely does not fit your definition.

 

[reggieM]

Now you defined scientism as “the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.” This is the definition we’re using, and is most definitely not what Michael Shermer describes as “scientistic.”

Your argument is that “nobody holds scientism”. I’ve already referred you to the Wikipedia site where, coincidentally, your Dennett quote was found (with the exact same parenthetical). I mention Shermer from the site and you claim he holds a different definition than the standard, philosophic definition of the term.

Ok, I can see that we have to start hair-splitting in order to prove that scientism is directly tied to materialism. That’s a pretty weak defense because there are many other atheists who affirm scientism and there are scholarly books both supporting and refuting their views.

But for the sake of extending this distraction, let’s compare:

“the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality.”

“natural explanations for all phenomena”

Natural explanations are what we call science.

A phenomena is an observable occurrence.
In the materialist view, everything is reducible to matter and therefore, all of reality is comprised of observable phenomena.

Shermer is using the same definition.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

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.

I am not sure if I am repeating what someone else may have commented on, but number 5 seems like it is backwards. I feel that it should be: “in order for scientism to be true, materialism must be true.”

 

[AntiTheist]

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

You apparently did not read my example.

Science is powerless to answer the question “What should I have for dinner tonight?” It is powerless not because my inclinations, hunger, previous culinary experiences, and the biochemistry that underlies them all are not ultimately reducible to matter (they certainly appear to be) – it is powerless because the topic is something other than what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works.

 

[The_Exodus]

You apparently did not read my example.

Science is powerless to answer the question “What should I have for dinner tonight?” It is powerless not because my inclinations, hunger, previous culinary experiences, and the biochemistry that underlies them all are not ultimately reducible to matter (they certainly appear to be) – it is powerless because the topic is something other than what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works.

I was thinking that if science cannot tell us what to do, and science is the only “true” means of gaining knowledge (not saying you take this position), it seems we manifestly do whatever we do for no reason at all. In other words, if “scientism” is the only way we can have real reasons, then neither you nor I can have a real reason for even posting on this forum.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

You apparently did not read my example.

Science is powerless to answer the question “What should I have for dinner tonight?” It is powerless not because my inclinations, hunger, previous culinary experiences, and the biochemistry that underlies them all are not ultimately reducible to matter (they certainly appear to be) – it is powerless because the topic is something other than what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works.

I think I understand your point. That science has a harder time answering the more abstract questions such as the dinner example you have given. Science has the ability to answer the question “what will you eat tonight,” but not the question “What should you have for dinner tonight” (unless you have some sort of food restriction due to a medical condition).

I believe this is why science doesn’t deal with concepts like “freedom” or “piety” because the nature of such concepts is not material. They are abstract in the pure sense that they don’t even have a connection with the material world.

Hopefully some of this makes sense…

 

[Spock]

1. In order for materialism to be true, all of reality must be reducible to matter (to the atomic and sub-atomic level).

Bad start. What you describe is “reductionism” and not “materialism”. Since the difference has been explained many times on this forum, it is pretty sad that such a misconception is still around.

 

[hatsoff]

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.

The argument is not deductively valid in its current form, but it can be made so with relative ease. First consider that premisses (2) and (5) are wholly unnecessary. To the remaining premisses with make the following modifications:

(1*) If materialism is true, then all of reality is reducible to matter (to the atomic and sub-atomic level).
(3*) If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.
(4*) If science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality, then scientism is true (because scientism IS the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality).
(6*) Scientism is false (because it is self-refuting).
(7*) Therefore, materialism is false.

This argument is deductively valid, since (7*) logically follows from (1*), (3*), (4*) and (6*). However, I take the position that materialism is just a confusion, and so any premiss which uses the concept of materialism, even just in a counterfactual, must be untrue. So the argument is unsound.

Still, even an unsound argument can shake the dogmatism of materialists, if it is subjectively compelling. Is this argument one such? I tend to think not. Materialists are unlikely to agree to (3*), which means they should have no problem resisting the conclusion. Other materialists will have issues with (6*). So, I don’t think this argument is going to take you very far, rhetorically.

But I could be wrong. Maybe some materialist will be shaken by it. So good luck!

 

[reggieM]

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

I overlooked these good points earlier.

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.

If we take that as true, then science cannot give a full enderstanding since it cannot observe the initial causes.

So, with regards to studies like:

the origin of the universe
the first origin of life on earth
the origin of the species
the origin of human beings

These topics would be outside of the scope of science since they cannot be observed.
Claims about the origins of such things are necessarily “non-scientific”.

If true, the scientism is false.
If not true, the science can investigate things which cannot ever, potentially, be observed.

 

[reggieM]

Following the above and much simpler:

If materialism is true,
then scientism is true.

Explanations at the deepest level of reality would be at the material level – thus, scientism.

An understanding of physics would be sufficient for understanding all of reality.
By Occam’s Razor, one would not need to go beyond what is sufficient – thus, scientism would be true.

‘…All systems subject to the laws of physics can be simulated by algorithms. Hence any system which cannot in principle be simulated by an algorithm must have a non-physical component…’

 

[tonyrey]

I was thinking that if science cannot tell us what to do, and science is the only “true” means of gaining knowledge (not saying you take this position), it seems we manifestly do whatever we do for no reason at all. In other words, if “scientism” is the only way we can have real reasons, then neither you nor I can have a real reason for even posting on this forum.

Bravissimo! If reasons have physical causes reasons are no longer necessary…

 

[tonyrey]

reductionism[/B]” and not “materialism”. Since the difference has been explained many times on this forum, it is pretty sad that such a misconception is still around.

One materialist on this forum defined truth as an isomorph of atomic particles. You can’t call that reductionism! That is pure materialism with only one level of explanation - in terms of matter!

 

[Spock]

One materialist on this forum defined truth as an isomorph of atomic particles. You can’t call that reductionism! That is pure materialism with only one level of explanation - in terms of matter!

I have no idea who that “one” materialist would have been. But it is wrong, no matter who said it. You cannot reduce the properties of graphite and diamond to the 6 carbon atoms which make up both of them - and explain the differencies. But to explain the differencies one does not have to reach for some “supernatural” - it still can be explained in fully materialistic terms. To equate materialism and reductionism is one of the dumbest fallacies - and there are many!

 

[reggieM]

The argument is not deductively valid in its current form, but it can be made so with relative ease. First consider that premisses (2) and (5) are wholly unnecessary. To the remaining premisses with make the following modifications:

(1*) If materialism is true, then all of reality is reducible to matter (to the atomic and sub-atomic level).
(3*) If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.
(4*) If science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality, then scientism is true (because scientism IS the belief that science alone is the sole and true source of knowledge about reality).
(6*) Scientism is false (because it is self-refuting).
(7*) Therefore, materialism is false.

Thanks - that is a good synthesis and improvment on the logical flow.

However, I take the position that materialism is just a confusion, and so any premiss which uses the concept of materialism, even just in a counterfactual, must be untrue. So the argument is unsound.

This would bring us to the definition of various aspects of the argument:

What is Materialism?
What is science?
What is reality?

Still, even an unsound argument can shake the dogmatism of materialists, if it is subjectively compelling. Is this argument one such? I tend to think not. Materialists are unlikely to agree to (3*), which means they should have no problem resisting the conclusion. Other materialists will have issues with (6*). So, I don’t think this argument is going to take you very far, rhetorically.

Why do you think (3*) will be resisted?

If all of reality is reducible to matter, then science alone can render the true understanding of all of reality.

What are the best arguments against that?

 

[reggieM]

I am not sure if I am repeating what someone else may have commented on, but number 5 seems like it is backwards. I feel that it should be: “in order for scientism to be true, materialism must be true.”

Yes, it does sound strange. I was trying to show that a falsification of scientism necessarily falsifies materialism. So the proposal is that, in order for materialism to be true, scientism must also be true.

 

[reggieM]

You apparently did not read my example.

Science is powerless to answer the question “What should I have for dinner tonight?” It is powerless not because my inclinations, hunger, previous culinary experiences, and the biochemistry that underlies them all are not ultimately reducible to matter (they certainly appear to be) – it is powerless because the topic is something other than what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works.

I did read your example but didn’t comment. Others offered good responses so I don’t want to repeat. But let’s look:

“What should I have for dinner?”

That question is reducible to physics.
What does the word “should” imply?
You have to have some reasons for dinner.
Eventually, you consider the reasons and decide.

The truest answer to “what should I do” in the materialist view, comes from science alone.
That is scientism. It merely shows what physical laws cause every phenomenon at work in you. Whatever choice you make is explainable truest and best (and therefore soley) by science.

 

[grannymh]

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?

Does that sound like all grass is green; therefore all green things are grass?

 

[grannymh]

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.

Personally, I understand that materialism is the philosophy that all reality is matter. Thus no reduction is necessary.

The realm of science is the material/physical. Thus, in a sense, in this particular realm, materialism can be considered real.

The real issue is that the material/physical realm is not the only realm when it comes to the human person. In itself, human nature unites the material and spiritual realms.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9 contains the answer to the mysteries of life.

 

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by 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?

Does that sound like all grass is green; therefore all green things are grass?

No. What is assumed in the brief comment I offered here (it’s best to read the entire discussion to arrive at what was meant) is … “if all things are composed solely from matter (and the physical properties, laws and the material forces that act on it) …”

All green colors are the combination of blue and yellow.
Grass is green.
Therefore, the color of grass comes from the combination of blue and yellow.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by 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?

If science explains all things which are made of only matter (due to the material/physical realm of science); then only those things which are composed solely of matter can be explained by science.

If there are things within the universe which are composed of both matter and spirit (material and spiritual); the spiritual/material thing is beyond the material limitations or realm of science. Therefore, science cannot completely explain all things which includes human nature which is an unique unification of soul/body. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.