Hawkingfan

You can't see me through my computer, can you? Are you telling me that you are undecided on whether I can fly or not until you actually perform the test? And what exactly do you mean by Occam's Razor cutting both positive and negative claims away? That means you have nothing left. Occam's Razor is supposed to leave you with the most reasonable answer. Are you saying that both the positive claim and negative claim are equally reasonable? They are both unreasonable? Which statement is more reasonable to believe without evidence? If you don't like my example, replace it with any supernatural claim.

CX

Hmmm...that's an interesting question. I supposed I would say I use a combination of empiricism and logic. Materialism in the strictest sense asserts that matter is all there is and that everything, including such ephemeral phenomena as consciousness or emotion, is the product of a combination of matter and motion. I'm think specifically of the kind of materialism embodied in the thinking of Democritus, Epicurus and the like.

I do not think it is reasonable to assume materialism as it is in no way self-evident or axiomatic. The assumptions I do make are few. Namely that there exists a reality independent of my (or anyone else's) perception of it and that such objective reality can be interrogated by use of empiricism and logic. If there is no objective reality or there is no way to examine it through objective means then we cannot even rationally speak of the "world" or ever hope to understand it. Consequently without accepting these assumptions there's really nowhere to go in terms of understanding the "world".

keyser_soze

I think everyone assumes you are a theist based on your replies over the time you've been here, which make it painfully obvious that you either are a theist, or you hold nothing but disdain for rational thought. You partially side with no atheist policies that I've ever seen. And you do not criticise both athiest and theist sides in this thread...I've personally put you on the theist tally, and would have done so strictly from your username even without reading the reply, because I know the name. Who are you trying to fool?

theophilus

That's a thoughtful response, but I'm afraid you're begging the question.
Before you can use empiricism or any other tool to "interrogate" the world, you must make some assumption about it's metaphysical nature.
It is either material, some combination of material and immaterial, or purely immaterial. I'll leave you to consider the epistemological implications of each possibility.

theophilus

theophilus

Clutch

You embarrass yourself further.

Empiricism is not a tool for "interrogating" the world. How did you invent such a strange idea?

Nor does it require any prior assumption about materialism. Notice that two of the most famous empiricists are Locke, who firmly believed in material substance (indeed several kinds of substance), and Berkeley, who firmly denied the existence of material substance.

Really, you must crack a book some time. I leave it to you to work out the epistemological consequences that such an act might engender.

Bill Snedden

I don't think so. That is, I disagree.

I don't think that whether any one of your options is or is not the case has anything necessarily to do with the epistemic value of an empirical approach. We (meaning most of us here, although certainly not you) seem to perceive that material entities are concretely instantiated and that immaterial entities are not (although they do exist as abstractions). Perhaps the dichotomy is inaccurate (there are only immaterial entities) or mistaken (immaterial entities have concrete existence), but these don't bear upon whether investigation of the external world will yield knowledge.

We do perceive regularity in existence, whether connected to material entities or not, and it is this regularity upon which an empirical approach depends. The justification of induction (from a foundationalist POV) doesn't depend upon whether or not reality is material or immaterial, but upon how it is structured and perceived to be structured.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. Oops! Double post with Clutch! Great minds run in the same channels!

Jobar

This is another of those threads which tiptoe daintily along the line separating EoG and Philosophy. I'll leave it here, but it would fit just as well on the top floor.

My own take of Sagan's garage dragon is that it's an extended demonstration/justification of Occam's Razor. It starts out by positing an entity- the dragon- and the series of tests suggested make the entity more and more unlikely to exist. I know that the razor refers to entities of explanation, or theories- but the two (the Razor and the Garage Dragon) are obviously closely related.

CX

I'm afraid I disagree. Perhaps you could elaborate in what manner I am begging the question. If I don't know ahead of time, and how can I if I'm being intellectually honest, how can I assume whether the universe is material, immaterial or both?