Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[Goat]

Evidence that is acceptable is evidence that can be independently verified.

I've long-since lost count of the number of times I've seen this misused.

My issue has always been this:

Is there any reason, at all, to think that you can't independently verify the claim that consciousness exists?

Really, don't check your own behavior, don't run to the hospital to get your brain scanned, just ask yourself whether you can verify the claim that you are conscious without doing these things.

If so, there is verification that breaks your "show me principle".

You see, I can do that with physical evidence. So far, no one has been able to show me a way to distinguish between 'non-physical' evidence, and the noosphere.

So, are you rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as thought?

If you accept the noosphere, you accept the idea that you know of something that is not physical – and you know it with non-physical evidence.

That is, it means you agree with me that Scientism is wrong to say that the physical is the end-all be-all of evidence.

It seems that you're trying to jump to other (unnamed) non-physical entities, that I've not remotely defended. And are pointing out that it would be hard or impossible to verify many of them.

Well, yes, the search for truth is hard, and impossible in places. Welcome to reality; the same goes for the physical. We'll take this one step at a time, and get to those things.

But the point for now is that this ridiculous "show me principle" has been shown to be false. We really need to quit ranting about how you don't see another way to verify things, and start spending that energy on looking at the other ways I've already mentioned.

On that note:

Can you? I noticed you, yet again, avoided that issue.

So you skipped over all my talk about your ability to verify consciousness without the "show me principle".

You apparently also didn't read the part where I asked you for evidence for this, rather than just another speech about how you, personally, are ignorant of the other ways of knowing things. Verification through tests of logical consistency was being used here (and the "show me principle" failed abysmally).

And you definitely skipped the last section, where I pointed out that the "show me principle" is just something someone has claimed without evidence–that, in years of asking, I've never once had any one "show me" the slightest scrap of evidence that the "show me principle" is more than a part of the noosphere.

All its ever been "shown" to do is be a way to thoughtlessly reject things that can be independently verified–simply because they aren't physical.


Because, if you notice, these are all checks about ideas that don't use the "show me principle" they use your own experience and the principle of non-contradiction.

Hence, my claim "the show me principle" is just another form of Scientism that needs to be thrown out is independently verified – and without anything you'd call "public information".

If someone can come up with a way to distinguish 'non-physical evidence' from concepts/emotions, and independently verify it, I would be GLAD to look.

Have a look, then.
Do you think that your experience of consciousness is non-physical evidence of consciousness, or do you think its just an illusion?

Do you want one better than this?
How about the fact that you're wrong, factually incorrect, to say that consciousness is purely physical. That breaks down into self-contradictions, too.

That being the case, the non-physcial evidence of your experience of consciousness proves to you that there is more to reality than the physical.

Unless, of course, you reject the idea that things shouldn't be self-contradictory. That is, after all, a way to verify a claim without using some overly narrow Scientistic approach like the "show me principle".

So, do you agree that we can throw out ideas that contradict themselves? That would be an excellent form of verification right there (and one that doesn't have the slightest to do with demanding physical evidence).

It's not the physical evidence that is important.. It is the 'independently verify'.

Check against your own experience, then, or against logic.
Your experience is independent, whether or not it is physical.

If someone says "Consciousness exists.", you can independently verify that.
If someone says "No statement is true.", you can independently falsify that.

No need for physical evidence there.

Until that issue is done, and there is a way to distinguish between 'non-physical evidence' and concepts/emotion', the claims mean nothing to me.

There's quite a lot of demanding, here.

I really should add that your position isn't somehow right by default. If you're still hung on this self-contradictory idea that you can't verify things using your own experience and throwing out self-contradictory claims (like the "show me principle"), you need to offer something like a scrap of evidence for that.

Really, it's been years now. Continuing to proclaim your ignorance of the other methods I've already pointed out isn't going to work.

I don't think you realize that you're throwing out logic here. Logic is, quite obviously, a check that can be done without a physical test. It's non-physical, but a way that things can be independently verified.

To claim that physical tests are important is fine (very true indeed). To claim that they are the only way you can know things is simply announcing your own ignorance.

And, at this point in the conversation, it is fairly inexcusable ignorance. The other methods have been pointed out to you more than once.


So, use your own personal, non-physical experience and logic to verify the examples I've given you: There is such a thing as consciousness, self-contradictory statements aren't true, and ignorant demands that physical evidence is your only way to independently verify things are ridiculous.

Once you've done that, we can talk some more about what other non-physical things we might also independently verify. I haven't decided, but think I might start with free will.

Well, again, you don't give me an answer, which tells me you don't have one.

Part of my job is debugging problems. When it comes to techniques , one method I use is examine the potential areas that might be causing the problem, and then start eliminating the various possibilities to narrow down the solution to the problem.

When it comes to your claim for 'non-physical evidence', I see a possibility. That is your 'non-physical evidence' is the same and concepts/emotions, and could be misinterpreted by confirmation bias. Before the acceptance of 'non-physical' evidence can be done, since that is beyond what the evidence of what we have, we have to eliminate the potential of it being misinterpreted emotional/conceptual.
When asked how I do that, I get the run around.

Therefore, my conclusion is you can't distinguish your non-physical from conceptual/emotional. Therefore, any claims you make building on the concept can not be taken seriously.

[Jester]

Well, again, you don't give me an answer, which tells me you don't have one.

An answer to what? What are some ways to advance knowledge without physical tests?
I've answered that several times. But, as you've been demanding a very straight-forward, obvious, and simple response, let me make that more clear.

Answer to your question: Direct experience and finding logical inconsistencies can tell us things without physical tests.

Now, please don't continue to declare that I've not presented an answer. You may not like that answer, it may not help your case at all, but it is simply, factually an answer.

Part of my job is debugging problems. When it comes to techniques , one method I use is examine the potential areas that might be causing the problem, and then start eliminating the various possibilities to narrow down the solution to the problem.

As someone who works with information systems, it's a big part of my job as well. And we've long-since singled out the self contradictory "show me principle" as the reason why you are forced to declare factually untrue things in order to support your case.

In fact, it seems that any defense at all of the "show me principle" has been abandoned. This only makes sense, given how easy it is to attack and how hard it is to defend, but this means that the only option left on the table is the idea that logic and experience are valid tests.

When it comes to your claim for 'non-physical evidence', I see a possibility. That is your 'non-physical evidence' is the same and concepts/emotions, and could be misinterpreted by confirmation bias.

If you are arguing from possibility, you are making a massive error.

I've heard out of you at nearly every turn that the physical senses are not perfect, but good enough to be trusted, that we should trust them in spite of the fact that there is a possibility that they might be deceiving us.

Now, all of the sudden, you want to say that our other experience is worthless because of the exact same sort of possibility? This is a perfect example of bias.

Before the acceptance of 'non-physical' evidence can be done, since that is beyond what the evidence of what we have, we have to eliminate the potential of it being misinterpreted emotional/conceptual.
When asked how I do that, I get the run around.

Then let me give it to you straight:

You are completely wrong on this point.
That assessment is false, out of touch with the facts, and otherwise a product of your own imagined version of reality and confirmation bias.

I've already pointed out that consciousness is non-physical evidence. Therefore, it is only some weird form of sophistry that could call it "beyond the evidence we have" it is evidence, and we have it.

Was that too much of a runaround? Let me put that more directly:

We have evidence that is non-physical. That evidence is consciousness.
You have agreed that it exists. You have never denied that you can confirm it without physical senses. Everything I've said about it has gone completely unchallenged by you.

Really, your own version of the story is that you have absolutely no response to any of the facts I've given you other than to airily dismiss them as "runaround"? That is the big challenge to the direct facts of reality I've mentioned.

If so, this is argument may well be the most obvious sophistry I've ever encountered. It amounts to "I don't want to deal with the facts, because all these facts are so complicated as to constitute a runaround".

Therefore, my conclusion is you can't distinguish your non-physical from conceptual/emotional.

The conceptual and emotional are themselves non-physical. I've been using them as an example.
This is like saying "you keep claiming that there is such a thing as a US president, but you constantly mention Obama. You can't seem to distinguish the two".

Isn't it obvious that the one is an example of the other?

But, since you've accepted consciousness, conceptions, and emotions, let's add a couple of more things onto that list:

Stepping out a tiny bit from mind: I assume you also trust in memory as an imperfect but reasonably useful source of information. But, if not, I'll explain why you should.

Next, I'll mention free will. It's long since been pointed out that accepting determinism is a self-contradiction. It is saying "I believe in determinism, but not because it is true: just because it is what I was determined to believe".
So, if you are committed to not endorsing self-contradictory statements, you should reject determinism.

What about fundamental principles of reality? You know, those dreaded things: metaphysics?
I assume you are a fan of Ockham's Razor, as most materialists tend to cite it, but let me know if this isn't the case.

I'm also a big fan of Sufficient Reason. Most people, and all scientists, would agree that things happen for a reason: that "just because" isn't an explanation of anything. Are you willing to agree to that?

To be perfectly direct: if history is any indicator, I'll not see an answer to any of these questions. Rather, I'll just get another complaint about how I didn't answer "the questions". I'll not be told what those questions are, and the reasons why the "show me principle" is wrong will not remotely be addressed.

But I urge you to write something of more substance than that: to actually give a reason why you are correct, or change your view.

So, how do I distinguish between illusion and reality without physical evidence? Is that "the question" you think I haven't answered?

If so: Experience and logic. Both of which "show me" that the "show me principle" is pure sophistry. As you're fond of saying with the physical senses, they aren't perfect. But they work more than well enough to answer the questions I've said they can answer.

If not, can you at least meet me a tenth of the way by telling me what this apparently devastating question actually is?

[Goat]

Well, again, you don't give me an answer, which tells me you don't have one.

An answer to what? What are some ways to advance knowledge without physical tests?
I've answered that several times. But, as you've been demanding a very straight-forward, obvious, and simple response, let me make that more clear.

Answer to your question: Direct experience and finding logical inconsistencies can tell us things without physical tests.

Now, please don't continue to declare that I've not presented an answer. You may not like that answer, it may not help your case at all, but it is simply, factually an answer.

Part of my job is debugging problems. When it comes to techniques , one method I use is examine the potential areas that might be causing the problem, and then start eliminating the various possibilities to narrow down the solution to the problem.

As someone who works with information systems, it's a big part of my job as well. And we've long-since singled out the self contradictory "show me principle" as the reason why you are forced to declare factually untrue things in order to support your case.

In fact, it seems that any defense at all of the "show me principle" has been abandoned. This only makes sense, given how easy it is to attack and how hard it is to defend, but this means that the only option left on the table is the idea that logic and experience are valid tests.

When it comes to your claim for 'non-physical evidence', I see a possibility. That is your 'non-physical evidence' is the same and concepts/emotions, and could be misinterpreted by confirmation bias.

If you are arguing from possibility, you are making a massive error.

I've heard out of you at nearly every turn that the physical senses are not perfect, but good enough to be trusted, that we should trust them in spite of the fact that there is a possibility that they might be deceiving us.

Now, all of the sudden, you want to say that our other experience is worthless because of the exact same sort of possibility? This is a perfect example of bias.

Before the acceptance of 'non-physical' evidence can be done, since that is beyond what the evidence of what we have, we have to eliminate the potential of it being misinterpreted emotional/conceptual.
When asked how I do that, I get the run around.

Then let me give it to you straight:

You are completely wrong on this point.
That assessment is false, out of touch with the facts, and otherwise a product of your own imagined version of reality and confirmation bias.

I've already pointed out that consciousness is non-physical evidence. Therefore, it is only some weird form of sophistry that could call it "beyond the evidence we have" it is evidence, and we have it.

Was that too much of a runaround? Let me put that more directly:

We have evidence that is non-physical. That evidence is consciousness.
You have agreed that it exists. You have never denied that you can confirm it without physical senses. Everything I've said about it has gone completely unchallenged by you.

Really, your own version of the story is that you have absolutely no response to any of the facts I've given you other than to airily dismiss them as "runaround"? That is the big challenge to the direct facts of reality I've mentioned.

If so, this is argument may well be the most obvious sophistry I've ever encountered. It amounts to "I don't want to deal with the facts, because all these facts are so complicated as to constitute a runaround".

Therefore, my conclusion is you can't distinguish your non-physical from conceptual/emotional.

The conceptual and emotional are themselves non-physical. I've been using them as an example.
This is like saying "you keep claiming that there is such a thing as a US president, but you constantly mention Obama. You can't seem to distinguish the two".

Isn't it obvious that the one is an example of the other?

But, since you've accepted consciousness, conceptions, and emotions, let's add a couple of more things onto that list:

Stepping out a tiny bit from mind: I assume you also trust in memory as an imperfect but reasonably useful source of information. But, if not, I'll explain why you should.

Next, I'll mention free will. It's long since been pointed out that accepting determinism is a self-contradiction. It is saying "I believe in determinism, but not because it is true: just because it is what I was determined to believe".
So, if you are committed to not endorsing self-contradictory statements, you should reject determinism.

What about fundamental principles of reality? You know, those dreaded things: metaphysics?
I assume you are a fan of Ockham's Razor, as most materialists tend to cite it, but let me know if this isn't the case.

I'm also a big fan of Sufficient Reason. Most people, and all scientists, would agree that things happen for a reason: that "just because" isn't an explanation of anything. Are you willing to agree to that?

To be perfectly direct: if history is any indicator, I'll not see an answer to any of these questions. Rather, I'll just get another complaint about how I didn't answer "the questions". I'll not be told what those questions are, and the reasons why the "show me principle" is wrong will not remotely be addressed.

But I urge you to write something of more substance than that: to actually give a reason why you are correct, or change your view.

So, how do I distinguish between illusion and reality without physical evidence? Is that "the question" you think I haven't answered?

If so: Experience and logic. Both of which "show me" that the "show me principle" is pure sophistry. As you're fond of saying with the physical senses, they aren't perfect. But they work more than well enough to answer the questions I've said they can answer.

If not, can you at least meet me a tenth of the way by telling me what this apparently devastating question actually is?

Lots of words.. but again,and declaring I made an 'massive error'. What I didn't get is an answer of 'How do I distinguish your non-physical evidence from thoughts/feelings'. How can i tell if your non-physical evidence is true, or a fantasy?

That is what is not being answered. Excuses about why I can't get that answer is not that answer, and is in fact, evidence that 'non-physical evidence' is a fantasy.

[Jester]

Lots of words.. but again,and declaring I made an 'massive error'. What I didn't get is an answer of 'How do I distinguish your non-physical evidence from thoughts/feelings'. How can i tell if your non-physical evidence is true, or a fantasy?

That is what is not being answered. Excuses about why I can't get that answer is not that answer, and is in fact, evidence that 'non-physical evidence' is a fantasy.

Okay, I promise fewer words this time:

First, my prediction was correct. There is no support at all for the "show me principle" here, and no attempt at all to show why the criticisms of it aren't devastating. It is, demonstrably, a worthless metaphysical concept that should be rejected.

Second, I answered that question directly: experience and logic.
That is, you have direct experience of some things (like your own thoughts). And denying certain other things (like dualism and free will) break down into self-contradictions.

That is an answer to that question. Since it keeps being asked (no matter how many times I answer it), I should probably underline that you need to address this, rather than behave as if it hasn't been presented.

Third, I've never said you can't get that answer. I've specifically said that you can. Either you aren't reading my posts, or there is a serious communication issue. To repeat, the answer is: direct experience and logic.

But, no, ignoring my answer is not evidence of anything but a communication breakdown. There isn't the slightest evidence at all that experience of things like free will and consciousness aren't non-physical evidence. If you think otherwise, feel free to present it. But, first, answer this question:

Are you seriously taking the position that you can't know that the mind exists, that your memory isn't mostly reliable (if imperfect), and that Ockham's Razor and Sufficient Reason are invalid?

Just to be clear, if that's not the position you're taking, you agree with me.

[Goat]

Lots of words.. but again,and declaring I made an 'massive error'. What I didn't get is an answer of 'How do I distinguish your non-physical evidence from thoughts/feelings'. How can i tell if your non-physical evidence is true, or a fantasy?

That is what is not being answered. Excuses about why I can't get that answer is not that answer, and is in fact, evidence that 'non-physical evidence' is a fantasy.

Okay, I promise fewer words this time:

First, my prediction was correct. There is no support at all for the "show me principle" here, and no attempt at all to show why the criticisms of it aren't devastating. It is, demonstrably, a worthless metaphysical concept that should be rejected.

Second, I answered that question directly: experience and logic.
That is, you have direct experience of some things (like your own thoughts). And denying certain other things (like dualism and free will) break down into self-contradictions.

That is an answer to that question. Since it keeps being asked (no matter how many times I answer it), I should probably underline that you need to address this, rather than behave as if it hasn't been presented.

Third, I've never said you can't get that answer. I've specifically said that you can. Either you aren't reading my posts, or there is a serious communication issue. To repeat, the answer is: direct experience and logic.

But, no, ignoring my answer is not evidence of anything but a communication breakdown. There isn't the slightest evidence at all that experience of things like free will and consciousness aren't non-physical evidence. If you think otherwise, feel free to present it. But, first, answer this question:

Are you seriously taking the position that you can't know that the mind exists, that your memory isn't mostly reliable (if imperfect), and that Ockham's Razor and Sufficient Reason are invalid?

Just to be clear, if that's not the position you're taking, you agree with me.

I see gobbledgookl yhere.. because.. well... for me. ockhams razor is 'The simpler of the explanations should be accepted, until the more complicated explanation has more explanatory power... so perhaps we disagree with that that is.

As for the claim for 'non-physical evidence', I don't see sufficient reason for it.

As for 'memory being imperfect' and 'senses being imperfect', that is precisely why I don't accept anything without verification... to filter those factors out.

I personally am not sure that the so called 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' it true.

It makes some declarations that I find to be untestable, and, in fact, might not be true.

[Jester]

ockhams razor is 'The simpler of the explanations should be accepted, until the more complicated explanation has more explanatory power... so perhaps we disagree with that that is.

Yes, that is exactly what it is.
Do you agree with this metaphysical principle?

As for the claim for 'non-physical evidence', I don't see sufficient reason for it.

I don't see sufficient reason for your position.

You see how anyone can say that? You actually have to give a reason for your position in order to be debating.

In my case, I've pointed out that your position is a self-contradiction. I explained why, then gave opposing evidence. Do you see the difference between this and typing the words "I don't see sufficient reason for it"?

As for 'memory being imperfect' and 'senses being imperfect', that is precisely why I don't accept anything without verification... to filter those factors out.

You accept that your senses are roughly accurate, or you wouldn't accept science.
You also accept your memory as roughly accurate for the same reason (You're relying on your memory of what science is and what it has shown).

I personally am not sure that the so called 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' it true.

Then you are personally not sure if science works, as science is based on it.

It makes some declarations that I find to be untestable, and, in fact, might not be true.

Are you really so distrusting of science as that?

You are aware that Sufficient Reason is a test? It's one of the tests science employs every day.

But, you need to tell me what you think is more likely: whether the "untestable" predictions are true, or whether things happen for literally no reason at all?

If the former, then you have tentatively concluded that Sufficient Reason is true.


Okay, I'm getting a bit more of your opinion. Let me review:

-You seem to accept at least one metaphysical principle (Ockham's Razor).

-You seem at least open to the idea that others might be true (Sufficient Reason).

-You've not contradicted the idea that consciousness exists, and that you have evidence for it that isn't physical.
So, you seem to accept that at least one kind of non-physical evidence is true (but let me know if you don't think you have non-physical evidence for the existence consciousness).

-You've also not argued against the idea that free will exists (and the reasons I gave for it).

-These last two things being true, you're not arguing at all against my case that there is more to the mind than the physical. I count that quite a concession, in that it is the conclusion both that the "show me principle" is wrong and that there is at least something more to reality than the material.

- If you accept Okham's Razor as being true, then you should also be willing to reject a position that proposes more brute facts than another, unless it can offer superior evidence in its favor.

If there's anything here you'd like to debate, let me know (and give your argument). But, if not, I'll move on to more non-physical things in my next post.

[Goat]

ockhams razor is 'The simpler of the explanations should be accepted, until the more complicated explanation has more explanatory power... so perhaps we disagree with that that is.

Yes, that is exactly what it is.
Do you agree with this metaphysical principle?

With the qualification 'Simpler does not mean true'. After all, we DO have the real world to account to. Example. Newton's laws of motion are a lot simpler than Relativity, yet, relativity has better predictive powers, and gives a better explanation about what is happening.

It is a guide.. not an absolute rule.. because, we can note exceptions


As for free will. I don't know what you mean by 'free will', I do not know a way to test for FREE WILL. There are so many different variations, none of which of empirical evidence either for or against, that the concept does not have meaning for me.

As for consciousness.. that is an emergent property of the brain.. so yet.. it is physical in nature. Can you show me consciousness without a brain attached to it? We can show how consciousness can be affected by damage to the brain. So, without a brain,.. the physical entity, we do not have consciousness.


And, one of the principles of 'sufficient reason',.. that every thing that begins to exist has a cause, I don't consider 'cut and dry' either. That is making an assumption that there are some indications that it might not be true.

[Jester]

Do you agree with this metaphysical principle?

With the qualification 'Simpler does not mean true'. After all, we DO have the real world to account to. Example. Newton's laws of motion are a lot simpler than Relativity, yet, relativity has better predictive powers, and gives a better explanation about what is happening.

I agree. It should only be applied when no more evidence can be shown for the more complex view than for the simpler one.

It is a guide.. not an absolute rule.. because, we can note exceptions

That's the case with most everything, I'd say.

As for free will. I don't know what you mean by 'free will', I do not know a way to test for FREE WILL.

Free will is the idea that the mind is not simply dictated by past brain-states and the laws of physics, that it has at least some control over its own thoughts.

But, to answer your concern, first is the way we test everything: with experience–either our own, or that of someone who's word we're willing to take.

Second is with logic. The claim that we don't have free will breaks down into logical contradictions, as has been explained. That is a very strong confirmation of free will.

In addition to that, there is no evidence for determinism. It is merely an extrapolation from those who assume materialism is true.

As for consciousness.. that is an emergent property of the brain.

I'm not sure that we've supported that, but the significant point is that this would not contradict anything I've said.

I didn't claim that the mind doesn't require the brain. I claimed that you know about it without reference to physical evidence, and that it can't be fully reduced to brain states. So, though I have my reservations about emergentism, everything I've claimed fits comfortably with it.

so yet.. it is physical in nature.

This does not follow, as property dualists, and hylemorphic dualists have shown.

Can you show me consciousness without a brain attached to it?

I didn't claim that your consciousness isn't attached to the brain. I claimed that it is not wholly physical; this is not to say that it does not require a brain.

We can show how consciousness can be affected by damage to the brain.

I agree, but this contradicts nothing I've said.

And, one of the principles of 'sufficient reason',.. that every thing that begins to exist has a cause, I don't consider 'cut and dry' either. That is making an assumption that there are some indications that it might not be true.

That isn't "one of the principles of sufficient reason". That's simply a restatement of sufficient reason.

It's also the basis of science; I don't think anyone would disagree with it if it weren't for the fact that so many realize that this would leave them open to the Kalam.
If it matters to you, I wasn't driving toward the Kalam; I'd not intended to make it more than a side-note.

But, getting back to the point, I personally can't think of any situation in which I'd be find it more reasonable to say "this happened for literally no reason at all" than "there must be an explanation for this".

Really, it's hard to imagine a more anti-intellectual statement than rejecting Sufficient Reason. It is the basis of all inquiry.


Also, breaking Sufficient Reason is almost always breaking Ockham's Razor as well, since it means proposing brute facts.

So, let's review:

- We agree on Ockham's Razor, noting that evidence can give us cause for adding complexity

- You have personal reservations about Sufficient Reason, but aren't willing to argue against it or declare that there are situations in which things happen for literally no reason at all.

- But you don't argue with the fact that Sufficient Reason is a basic scientific test. As such, we only seem to be wavering about whether or not we should trust that the principles of science are valid.

- You do claim that consciousness is physical (and I responded), but still don't argue with the notion that you don't require a physical test to know it exists.

- You question free will, but aren't willing to state or argue that it doesn't exist. I'd say that my reasons for it outweigh any reasons given against. We can tentatively conclude that it exists unless a strong counterargument is presented.

I'd say that brings us up to date.

[Goat]

It's also the basis of science; I don't think anyone would disagree with it if it weren't for the fact that so many realize that this would leave them open to the Kalam.

No, it is not the basis for science. From what I read on it, the principle is 'controversial

Stanford philosophy department starts out with 'The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause'

Now, in QM, we can't show that is true. We can't show it's false. There is a strong possibility it might not be true though.

It is not as 'set in stone' as you make it out to be though.

If it matters to you, I wasn't driving toward the Kalam; I'd not intended to make it more than a side-note.

But, getting back to the point, I personally can't think of any situation in which I'd be find it more reasonable to say "this happened for literally no reason at all" than "there must be an explanation for this".

Really, it's hard to imagine a more anti-intellectual statement than rejecting Sufficient Reason. It is the basis of all inquiry.

Funny thing. Are you calling Hume to be 'anti-intellectual'?? While he didn't reject causticity, he reject alot about the way 'The principle of sufficient reason was forumat4ed.

I think it is vastly over thinking and complicating things.. It takes somethiing, and drives it into the ground to make it totally meaningless.


Also, breaking Sufficient Reason is almost always breaking Ockham's Razor as well, since it means proposing brute facts.

So, let's review:

- We agree on Ockham's Razor, noting that evidence can give us cause for adding complexity

- You have personal reservations about Sufficient Reason, but aren't willing to argue against it or declare that there are situations in which things happen for literally no reason at all.

- But you don't argue with the fact that Sufficient Reason is a basic scientific test. As such, we only seem to be wavering about whether or not we should trust that the principles of science are valid.

- You do claim that consciousness is physical (and I responded), but still don't argue with the notion that you don't require a physical test to know it exists.

- You question free will, but aren't willing to state or argue that it doesn't exist. I'd say that my reasons for it outweigh any reasons given against. We can tentatively conclude that it exists unless a strong counterargument is presented.

I'd say that brings us up to date.[/quote]

We have physical tests for consciousness. So, I don't care what you claim, it's wrong.

As for free will. .you again misrepresent it. I deny that validity of the concept. You presented one concept, very incompletely, and yet there are at least 5 or 6 different concepts of free wiill that are mutually exclusive with yours. I am 'Ignostic' about free will.. because there are too many mutually exclusive concepts about what it is out there.

FREE WILL is just a set of meaningless words that get trotted out to excuse why man makes so much evil in the world.


Oh, I also would like to see the CAUSE of the timing of when a specific radioactive atom decays, and the CAUSE of virtual particles.

[Goat]

I beleive I figured out why I don't like the 'principle of sufficent reason'. It has terminology that has some vague defintions, and is too broadly defined.

The way it is formulated has too much wiggle room so that woo peddlers can add fluff to make it meaningless.