The Good Place

It is true that the versions put forwards by some (Malf perhaps?) are indeed naïve/irrational or amusing. However when there is an attempt to insert such nonsense as part of an argument it is no longer amusing, but simply - irrational. The sceptics undermine their own credibility each time this happens - not least because it indicates they are not here to learn or seriously enter a discussion. Silly quips do eventually lose their charm - if there was any at the outset.

Is this lack of credibility merely a reflection of psi proponents own lack of scientific and academic credibility?  Teach us Yoda.

Pointing out that this is not an evidence-based claim does not mean that a separate faith-based claim is being made (that science will answer those questions). It just means that time will tell one way or the other.

This propensity to put words in the mouths of skeptics is another reason why you don't find skeptics engaging with you here. It's tiresome and boring.

I'll leave it to the community at large to evaluate for themselves whether Steve's approach is consistent with what I highlighted in bold or not.  For me that is not how I have read his words over the years.  Its been significantly stronger (i.e., back to that so very offensive word to you: "Faith") and much more dismissive of potential alternative explanations.

I do think there are plenty of skeptical thinkers here, btw.  I just don't think most of them subscribe to a materialist worldview.  Or, if they do, they do a really nice job of keeping that aspect of their persona muted.

I think the answer would be that it wouldn't be anomalous any more, but it might still be immaterialistic - depending, of course, whether the theory that had been successfully been developed to explain it was immaterialistic.

But the point I was making is that I don't think Silence was criticising a reliance on science as such - but only the assumption that science would eventually come up with a materialistic explanation for everything. My own feeling is that if one needs to go beyond materialism for explanations (and I think we should remember that some anomalists don't necessarily believe we do, even if the explanations require modifications of physics as currently understood), then science is still the best methodology we have for seeking those explanations. In other words, the scientific method isn't limited to materialistic phenomena.

Why would something defined as immaterial remain so after it's nature is known?

Why would something defined as immaterial remain so after it's nature is known?

Well, it was your term because I was replying to your post. But I assume you meant something involving factors that weren't within the material universe. If so, that's not synonymous with "whose nature is unknowable".

For example, suppose you were a dualist, and that you had a complete theory describing how the soul worked, which had passed all the scientific tests that could be devised. The soul's nature - or at least its action - would be known as well as we could hope to know it scientifically, but that still wouldn't make the soul material.

First thing like to clear up is materialism is only important to philosophers. Most pure scientists could not care less about it. And it's a pejorative label applied by those whom don't like the implications of materialism. 

Let's do a gedankenerfahrung. Pick any immaterialistic anamolous phenomenon (ImAP). Let's assume repeated observations are made. From those observations a hypothesis is formulated. Now the hypothesis is tested and shown to be a good description of the nature of this particular ImAP.  Now from that hypothesis a full theory is developed and further tested to see if it remains a true description - it does. Now the question is, does that ImAP continue to be a ImAP?

Materialism: the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Are you suggesting that Sean Carroll doesn't regard this as sacrosanct ?

 "Pick any immaterialistic anamolous phenomenon"

I doubt once again if you see the irony, but near death experience research arguably (at least) fulfils the criteria of your thought experiment.  

So first of all, I agree with malf on the usage of the term God. At least here in the USA, using that term will conjure images of the typical judeochristian god in most people’s minds so it’s easier to just use another word. I prefer Nature with capital, because I do believe she isn’t more clever than we give her credit for.

Here’s a question I have for the pro-materialists (if anyone would consider themselves such). What is something that “is”? Right now , we have a standard model that has many different particles/waves  and “carrier” particles and waves. But what are they made of? Many particles Er a are familiar with are made of quarks. Ok that makes sense. Do you expect we willfind atoms in the original meaning of the word (smallest divisible unit)?if so, what can We say about the  fundamental properties of it? If it’s its “turtles all the way down”, and our models limitour  current thinking, we may learn many bits and how they relate, but then what?

Well, it was your term because I was replying to your post. But I assume you meant something involving factors that weren't within the material universe. If so, that's not synonymous with "whose nature is unknowable".

For example, suppose you were a dualist, and that you had a complete theory describing how the soul worked, which had passed all the scientific tests that could be devised. The soul's nature - or at least its action - would be known as well as we could hope to know it scientifically, but that still wouldn't make the soul material.

I use that word for convenience. When I do I'm never using it in its strict definition. I could use the word physical but I anticipate it will be misconstrued. With your previous educational background would you understand how space can be physical yet not material? Something rather than nothing as most would assume. If you do understand the analogy then you'll understand how I think anamolous phenomena including the soul may be real.

I'm not religious but I'll be damned if I'm going to have a hang up about using the word God just because you guys think it's naïve/irrational or amusing.

I fully support your right to reference a non doctrinal, non religious God. The naïveté is to be surprised when someone misconstrues or is confused by the concept. For example, the devout, reading your strong evidence for (your version of) God, might see it as a justification for their own homophobia.

I use that word for convenience. When I do I'm never using it in its strict definition. I could use the word physical but I anticipate it will be misconstrued. With your previous educational background would you understand how space can be physical yet not material? Something rather than nothing as most would assume. If you do understand the analogy then you'll understand how I think anamolous phenomena including the soul may be real.

I don't think it would make any difference to what I said if you substituted "non-physical" for "immaterial" throughout.

I don't have any difficulty in understanding that you think anomalous phenomena have a physical/material basis. The question you put to me was "Why would something defined as immaterial remain so after it's nature is known?" That's what I was explaining.

So first of all, I agree with malf on the usage of the term God. At least here in the USA, using that term will conjure images of the typical judeochristian god in most people’s minds so it’s easier to just use another word. I prefer Nature with capital, because I do believe she isn’t more clever than we give her credit for.

Here’s a question I have for the pro-materialists (if anyone would consider themselves such). What is something that “is”? Right now , we have a standard model that has many different particles/waves  and “carrier” particles and waves. But what are they made of? Many particles Er a are familiar with are made of quarks. Ok that makes sense. Do you expect we willfind atoms in the original meaning of the word (smallest divisible unit)?if so, what can We say about the  fundamental properties of it? If it’s its “turtles all the way down”, and our models limitour  current thinking, we may learn many bits and how they relate, but then what?

Maybe, in our universe, the property of the fundamental units is the potential to become our universe.