Materialism as a religion

At the risk of introducing another thinker/expert/scientist without a prior background check to make sure he has no weird fetish hiding in his philosophical cupboard, I'll offer this article on the subject at hand. This time it is professor of astronomy, Adam Frank (an actual scientist this time, not a philosopher) writing in Aeon magazine.

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone...sciousness


He then goes into a description of applied quantum physics and continues ...


And he asks ...

At the risk of introducing another thinker/expert/scientist without a prior background check to make sure he has no weird fetish hiding in his philosophical cupboard...

Why would any metaphysic assume that what we know now is all that we would ever know? I’m sure the notion of physicalism has yet more room to expand, and rightly so. Whether one calls that ‘useless’ or ‘sensible’ may depend on how badly you want to throw stones at it.

Because that is the purpose of a metaphysic. A metaphysic is supposed to encompass the reason and structure behind the physical universe.

Because that is the purpose of a metaphysic. A metaphysic is supposed to encompass the reason and structure behind the physical universe.

I think that is debatable. Perhaps a metaphysic takes a broader view, without giving up the flexibility to adapt to new data.

If we take a rigid view we will continue to find all of them somewhat unsatisfactory. Problem-free metaphysics seem thin on the ground... perhaps Max has the right idea in leaving all -isms behind, and concentrating on discovering and modelling what we can.

At the risk of introducing another thinker/expert/scientist without a prior background check to make sure he has no weird fetish hiding in his philosophical cupboard, I'll offer this article on the subject at hand. This time it is professor of astronomy, Adam Frank (an actual scientist this time, not a philosopher) writing in Aeon magazine.

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone...sciousness


He then goes into a description of applied quantum physics and continues ...


And he asks ...

I like this piece. It keeps alive the magic and mystery of matter. I've been banging a similar drum (in that he may be approaching the "monkey -brain limit" problem). This guy is just more erudite and eloquent than me. 

At the risk of introducing another thinker/expert/scientist without a prior background check to make sure he has no weird fetish hiding in his philosophical cupboard,

Is that an acceptance that ad-hominen attacks are admissible rather than the fallacy which they are usually considered to be? I'm not sure I like the direction this forum is taking.

Is that an acceptance that ad-hominen attacks are admissible rather than the fallacy which they are usually considered to be? I'm not sure I like the direction this forum is taking.

No, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek because I was taken to task for posting something from someone who turned out to have strange ideas about other matters - including sexual behaviour. I was also criticised for suggesting that bringing up those other matters as a way of discrediting his views on materialism might constitute an ad hom.

I've since learned that Koons' lecture was a summary of his book which, in turn, is a collection of essays from 23 philosophers on the "Waning of Materialism". And no, I have not gone to the trouble of checking the sexual predilections of those 23.

Twenty-three philosophers examine the doctrine of materialism find it wanting. The case against materialism comprises arguments from conscious experience, from the unity and identity of the person, from intentionality, mental causation, and knowledge. The contributors include leaders in the fields of philosophy of mind, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, who respond ably to the most recent versions and defenses of materialism.

Is that an acceptance that ad-hominen attacks are admissible rather than the fallacy which they are usually considered to be? I'm not sure I like the direction this forum is taking.

I really don’t think I made an ad hom Typoz... But sorry if you think I did.

I really don’t think I made an ad hom Typoz... But sorry if you think I did.

I did not see it as an ad hom, but rather as relevant to the question at hand - can he be trusted to give an informed opinion, given that he is willing to grossly subvert the process to serve his faith?

Linda

I really don’t think I made an ad hom Typoz... But sorry if you think I did.

I'm not sure what it was. I wasn't following all the details. But I do know the subject was changed.

Query. I've heard of promissory materialism. Is there promissory immaterialism?