Could psi have a materialist explanation?

A hardcore materialist might say there is already a ‘materialist explanation’ for psi: a weakness for p-hacking, and a love of fantastical stories.

I think the original poster was asking the question whether psi could be explained materially if that kind of explanation were ruled out.

The ‘p-hacking’ explanation and similar have to be considered, of course. But I think that should involve a serious consideration of whether they can really explain the observations, rather than just a wave of the hand.

If something is expandable in its definition, then it doesn’t mean anything. If physicalism can be expanded to fold in things that weren’t previously considered physical, then physicalism as a word doesn’t mean jack shit.

If something is expandable in its definition, then it doesn’t mean anything. If physicalism can be expanded to fold in things that weren’t previously considered physical, then physicalism as a word doesn’t mean jack shit.

If you’re looking to subscribe to an “-ism” that is unbending and inflexible in the face of new data, may I suggest Catholicism?

If you’re looking to subscribe to an “-ism” that is unbending and inflexible in the face of new data, may I suggest Catholicism?

You could include atheism too. It all depends upon what you are willing to accept as evidence (new data). I have not seen a hint of flexibility among the regular skeptics here or elsewhere.

If you’re looking to subscribe to an “-ism” that is unbending and inflexible in the face of new data, may I suggest Catholicism?

You think those qualities are limited to a single religion? As opposed to any given religion, or any PoV at all.

You could include atheism too. It all depends upon what you are willing to accept as evidence (new data). I have not seen a hint of flexibility among the regular skeptics here or elsewhere.

Every time I read how inflexible skeptics are I wonder if the person(s) whom think that realize their own?

You think those qualities are limited to a single religion? As opposed to any given religion, or any PoV at all.

Of course not.

Of course not.

Then what was the point of saying that?

Then what was the point of saying that?

To point out the ridiculousness of insisting any model of reality should be insulated from new findings.