Materialism is Self-Refuting

[hatsoff]

reggieM,

I should note that, on second thought, the argument might be more subjectively compelling than I had initially supposed. So I apologize for my perhaps too-harsh criticism earlier. Let’s see what can be done with it…

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?

A materialist might say the following: Even though everything is reducible to matter in principle, that doesn’t mean that it’s reducible in practice. So, for all those things which are not reducible in practice, we may never have a scientific explanation for them.

The response to this can take two forms: First, suppose the materialist is correct that some things, though reducible to matter in principle, are not reducible in practice. Then we are still left with the problem that science is always in principle in the position to trump everything else, and this in turn is a kind of scientism. Second, what does it mean to say that something is possible in principle but will never actually happen? Isn’t it true that if we know something will never happen, then it is not possible even in principle? How else are we to make sense of the concept of possibility?

The materialist can also try to reject (3*) on the grounds that a system cannot model itself, because in order to model a system Y, the system, say X, doing the modeling must be more complex than Y. So if X models Y, then X is more complex than Y, which means X and Y are different systems, i.e., no system can model itself. So the material universe cannot model itself, which means science will never have all the answers.

This objection is more difficult to overcome, but we can still point out that whether or not science can have all the answers, certainly it still follows that science is in the best position to have each answer. So, just as before, science will trump other explanations every time, which is sufficient I think to reach the problems of scientism.

Of course, the materialist has plenty of counter-arguments at his disposal. The object of this game is to keep pressing him to deal with unintuitive consequences of his confusing system. At some point—hopefully—he will begin to recognize that his assumptions may not have been entirely appropriate. However, that sort of self-reflection is often extremely difficult to elicit.

 

[reggieM]

reggieM,

I should note that, on second thought, the argument might be more subjectively compelling than I had initially supposed. So I apologize for my perhaps too-harsh criticism earlier. Let’s see what can be done with it…

Not at all – you’re sharpening the discussion. Thanks for your great insights here also.

The response to this can take two forms: First, suppose the materialist is correct that some things, though reducible to matter in principle, are not reducible in practice. Then we are still left with the problem that science is always in principle in the position to trump everything else, and this in turn is a kind of scientism. Second, what does it mean to say that something is possible in principle but will never actually happen? Isn’t it true that if we know something will never happen, then it is not possible even in principle? How else are we to make sense of the concept of possibility?

Excellent. In the first case, ignorance is offered as a positive value. In principle, science has the completely correct solution to everything. But since we don’t have access to all of the data, we have to make guesses. But if that is claimed as another source of knowledge then it’s just a substitute for scientism and not really another source of knowledge about reality.
In the second case, we’d have to conclude that it’s impossible to observe certain, actually-existing, parts of the universe.
Right, that says something about possibility and also what we mean by “materialism” – since the latter assumes some possiblity of observation and scientific measurement.

If something exists, but is impossible ever to observe empirically, then isn’t that the same as an immaterial substance?

The materialist can also try to reject (3*) on the grounds that a system cannot model itself, because in order to model a system Y, the system, say X, doing the modeling must be more complex than Y. So if X models Y, then X is more complex than Y, which means X and Y are different systems, i.e., no system can model itself. So the material universe cannot model itself, which means science will never have all the answers.

That is complicated and I’ll have to think about it. Since no system can model itself, then one would have to be outside the system to create an accurate model.

Materialism itself is a claim about how the entire system is modelled. In order to make the materialist claim, one has to rely on information coming from outside the system (outside of the materialist construct).

That seems similar to the self-refuting proposition of scientism also (if I understood it correctly thus far).

Of course, the materialist has plenty of counter-arguments at his disposal. The object of this game is to keep pressing him to deal with unintuitive consequences of his confusing system. At some point—hopefully—he will begin to recognize that his assumptions may not have been entirely appropriate. However, that sort of self-reflection is often extremely difficult to elicit.

Thanks again for these counterpoints – they’re very helpful.

 

[AntiTheist]

The truest answer to “what should I do” in the materialist view, comes from science alone.

No, you are incorrect. Materialists do not use science to determine what they should have for dinner.

Whatever choice you make is explainable truest and best (and therefore soley) by science.

How exactly do you propose that we use “science” do determine that my choice to have a steak tonight – instead of fish – is the “truest and best” choice? Be very specific.

Fundamental misunderstandings like this are at the root of why you get taken in by silly arguments like the one you post in the OP.

 

[reggieM]

No, you are incorrect. Materialists do not use science to determine what they should have for dinner.

You’ve moved the discussion from the topic of Materialism to that of individuals who you are calling Materialists.

Now, how can I say anything about this group of people? Who, precisely are they? How do you know they are Materialists?

Most importantly, how can I prove that they are consistent with Materialism (or not)?
I’d have to know who the people are, and then study them.

But that doesn’t work in a discussion on the general philosophical principles.

How exactly do you propose that we use “science” do determine that my choice to have a steak tonight – instead of fish – is the “truest and best” choice? Be very specific.

We have already established that science would give the best possible explanation of that question in the materialist view.

So, as above – whether you apply this general principle to your life or not is irrelevant. I cannot judge you personally, but can only judge the concepts which are being discussed.

 

[AntiTheist]

We have already established that science would give the best possible explanation of that question in the materialist view.

No, “we” haven’t. You have randomly asserted it, persumably on the basis of your own peculiar definitions of materialism and “scientism,” which you have defined before you even bother looking at the world and what people actually do and how knowledge actually works.

This is a huge problem for you: you insist on using your own ideas as premises without bothering to learn anything about whether your ideas actually match reality.

 

[tonyrey]

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!

It is inappropriate for me to name the person nor does it make any difference.

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.

That is an assumption which needs justification. How do you **know **everythingcan be explained in fully materialistic terms? The properties of graphite and diamond are still properties of material objects whereas knowledge is intangible.

 

[tonyrey]

No, you are incorrect. Materialists do not use science to determine what they should have for dinner.

How exactly do you propose that we use “science” do determine that my choice to have a steak tonight – instead of fish – is the “truest and best” choice? Be very specific.

It is significant that your questions are amoral. How do you determine whether it is right to kill a person?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You are right if scientism is the belief that science can in principle explain everything and materialism is the belief that everything is derived from matter because science is restricted to material objects. If reasons have material causes reasons are no longer necessary…

 

[Spock]

It is inappropriate for me to name the person nor does it make any difference.

Correct. I only wanted to point out that one person’s opinion does not stand for all the others.

That is an assumption which needs justification. How do you **know **everythingcan be explained in fully materialistic terms?

Obviously I cannot know that, since it would imply omniscience. But so far, the track record is excellent. There is nothing which would point to some “non-materialistic” explanation. Certainly we cannot explain everything.

There are many things which no one would ever care to investigate to “explain”. Example: who cares, why Joe prefers blodes and Jim prefers brunettes? Presumably it could be explained by some genentic code, some quirk of the upbringing, but the question is simply irrelevant to invest time and energy to seek for an answer. Why does one person find a joke funny, and another one does not? Does anyone care? Should anyone care? Why does one person prefer sweet tasting food, while another one prefers salty? It could be due to their upbrining, but does anyone care?

There are zillions of irrelevant questions (like these) which will probably never be answered, because they are irrelevant. But important, relevant questions, like what causes Down-syndrome, and how can it be prevented, will be answered in due course of events. And the answer will be some scientific, materialistic answer, you can bet your life on it.

The properties of graphite and diamond are still properties of material objects whereas knowledge is intangible.

That is not the point. I am simply talking about the simplistic view of “reductionism”, which asserts that materialists are supposed to believe that “everything” can be reduced to sub-atomic particles.

 

[tonyrey]

That is an assumption which needs justification. How do you know everything can be explained in fully materialistic terms?

What about your intangible thoughts and decisions? What about truth and freedom?

There are many things which no one would ever care to investigate to “explain”. Example: who cares, why Joe prefers blondes and Jim prefers brunettes? Presumably it could be explained by some genetic code, some quirk of the upbringing, but the question is simply irrelevant to invest time and energy to seek for an answer. Why does one person find a joke funny, and another one does not? Does anyone care? Should anyone care? Why does one person prefer sweet tasting food, while another one prefers salty? It could be due to their upbringing, but does anyone care?

People certainly care when it comes to a legal case…

There are zillions of irrelevant questions (like these) which will probably never be answered, because they are irrelevant. But important, relevant questions, like what causes Down-syndrome, and how can it be prevented, will be answered in due course of events. And the answer will be some scientific, materialistic answer, you can bet your life on it.

Do **all **important, relevant questions potentially have scientific, materialistic answers?

That is not the point. I am simply talking about the simplistic view of “reductionism”, which asserts that materialists are supposed to believe that “everything” can be reduced to sub-atomic particles.

If everything is derived from matter everything must** ultimately** be reducible to sub-atomic particles.

 

[reggieM]

If everything is derived from matter everything must** ultimately** be reducible to sub-atomic particles.

That’s exactly right. If “not everything” is derived from matter … then materialism is false.

 

[lemondiesel]

What about your intangible thoughts and decisions? What about truth and freedom?

None of those exist outside of the rational mind

If everything is derived from matter everything must** ultimately** be reducible to sub-atomic particles.

What isn’t?

 

[Spock]

What about your intangible thoughts and decisions? What about truth and freedom?

What about the image in a mirror? It is not “tangible”, is it? There is nothing behind the mirror, is there? Do you really think that the intangible nature of the image somehow is incompatible with the materialistic view?

Do **all **important, relevant questions potentially have scientific, materialistic answers?

Based upon the track record it is a highly plausible hypothesis.

People certainly care when it comes to a legal case…

They do care why Jim prefers blond girls and Jack prefers brunettes? That is new to me. Care to quote a legal case where this was a deciding factor?

If everything is derived from matter everything must** ultimately** be reducible to sub-atomic particles.

That’s exactly right. If “not everything” is derived from matter … then materialism is false.

And here is the basic misconception, in crystal clear format. No, materialism does NOT say that everything can be reduced to sub-atomic particles. How many times does it have to be spelled out? The properties of charcoal and diamond do not follow from the fact that they are both composed of 6 identical carbon atoms. Yet this difference can be explained in fully materialistic fashion, no need to invoke some “supernatural” explanation. It would be so much more productive if you learned what materialism actually says, and not build a strawman and attack that…

 

[tonyrey]

What about your intangible thoughts and decisions? What about truth and freedom?
None of those exist outside of the rational mind

My goodness! What a dogmatic statement! For a start “outside” is a metaphor which does not accurately describe mental events. You’re still trapped in your materialistic view of reality. It is worth repeating that our primary data are intangible: our thoughts, feelings and decisions cannot be detected with our senses.

If everything is derived from matter everything must ultimately be reducible to sub-atomic particles.
What isn’t?

If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know sub-atomic particles exist. Mindless objects are not aware of anything. Our starting point is not things but thoughts. We are all in what has been called the egocentric predicament. You believe things existed prior to thoughts but it is more reasonable to believe thoughts existed prior to things. Intangible realities like truth, justice, freedom and love are indestructible.

The success of science has tempted men to believe science can explain everything - which is sheer nonsense. Science cannot even explain itself, let alone the scientist. All knowledge presupposes insight and understanding which brain cells lack. They don’t even know they exist nor can they control themselves. They are part of a biological machine which functions according to physical laws and has no power of choice whatsoever. Everything that occurs in the brain is determined by what has happened in the past. In that scheme of things there is no room for truth or freedom. The direct consequence of materialism is total scepticism. If our thoughts are no more than minute electrical currents we cannot choose what to think and if we cannot choose what to think our thoughts are worthless. They are merely the result of mindless functions. The theory that only matter exists is self-destructive because matter does not know anything. Knowledge is reduced to a series of purposeless events and truth disappears utterly. The materialist destroys the very means by which he has reached his conclusion - like a man sawing down the tree on which he is standing - demonstrating that he has no under-standing!

 

[Spock]

It is worth repeating that our primary data are intangible: our thoughts, feelings and decisions cannot be detected with our senses.

If you restrict the “senses” to our 5 direct means of discovering reality, then you are the dogmatic and blind one. The senses incorporate the thoughts, too. They also incorporate the extensions of the primary senses, like a microscope or telescope extends the ability of sight.

If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know sub-atomic particles exist. Mindless objects are not aware of anything. Our starting point is not things but thoughts. We are all in what has been called the egocentric predicament. You believe things existed prior to thoughts but it is more reasonable to believe thoughts existed prior to things.

Sheer nonsense. Try the experiment of immersing yourself in lukewarm water, put on blinds, cover your ears and in a few hours you will become a mindless hull. The depravation of the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is lethal to the thinking process.

Intangible realities like truth, justice, freedom and love are indestructible.

None of these exist, except as concepts.

All knowledge presupposes insight and understanding which brain cells lack.

Walking presupposes the muscle cells in the legs, which themselves cannot “walk”. Does that mean that “walking” is a supernatural phenomenon? From your line of thought it would be… is it?

 

[reggieM]

No, materialism does NOT say that everything can be reduced to sub-atomic particles. How many times does it have to be spelled out? The properties of charcoal and diamond do not follow from the fact that they are both composed of 6 identical carbon atoms. Yet this difference can be explained in fully materialistic fashion

That’s what reductive analysis is. Its a causal chain which moves from the effect to the lowest level of cause. We trace the formation of charcoal and diamonds from the atomic level where they are the same. Then, the causal chain moves to the application of different physical forces of energy and heat, which cause the atoms to bind or not. Thus, we understand the process that creates the diamond.

This is exactly what materialist reductionism is. Scientism is built on that.

With your analogy here you prove it. Materialism claims that everything is essentially the same as charcoal and diamonds. Physical pressures and laws are applied to atoms and then everything in the entire universe results.

Scientism means that we can arrive at the truest explanation of everything through science, and that is proven in this example you provide.

 

[JDaniel]

Basically, Materialism is everything, and eventually, evolution creates a being that can observe this everything.

Lemon:

Does that sit well with you? That “evolution” creates? Would you define what you mean by the use of that word?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Locke

Read the Intro and the first few pages of the book:

[C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\Philosophical Tracts\Scientism philosophy and the ___ - Google Books.mht](C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\Philosophical Tracts\Scientism philosophy and the ___ - Google Books.mht)

God bless:
js

 

[lemondiesel]

My goodness! What a dogmatic statement! For a start “outside” is a metaphor which does not accurately describe mental events. You’re still trapped in your materialistic view of reality. It is worth repeating that our primary data are intangible: our thoughts, feelings and decisions cannot be detected with our senses.

Thoughts and feelings are results of the senses, therefore decisions can be theoretically predictable.

If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know sub-atomic particles exist. Mindless objects are not aware of anything. Our starting point is not things but thoughts. We are all in what has been called the egocentric predicament. You believe things existed prior to thoughts but it is more reasonable to believe thoughts existed prior to things. Intangible realities like truth, justice, freedom and love are indestructible.

Get rid of the human mind and our societies, what is justice and freedom? These were created by our minds, along with truth and love.

Lemon:

Does that sit well with you? That “evolution” creates? Would you define what you mean by the use of that word?

If you would rather have me use the word manipulate than I can, but “Evolution creates” by natural selection, and everything is bound to some type of evolution.

 

[lemondiesel]

If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know sub-atomic particles exist. Mindless objects are not aware of anything. Our starting point is not things but thoughts. We are all in what has been called the egocentric predicament. You believe things existed prior to thoughts but it is more reasonable to believe thoughts existed prior to things. Intangible realities like truth, justice, freedom and love are indestructible.

Get rid of the human mind and our societies, what is justice and freedom? These were created by our minds, along with truth and love.