Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Manifesto for a Post-Materialistic Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Manifesto for a Post-Materialistic Science

    Just found this which I subtitle: "From the Frying Pan, Into the Fire"

    I'll come back later with comments - as soon as I've studied it some more.

    Feel free to comment in the meantime.

    http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Just found this which I subtitle: "From the Frying Pan, Into the Fire"

    I'll come back later with comments - as soon as I've studied it some more.

    Feel free to comment in the meantime.

    http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science

    Jorge
    In a general review of the site, I found it weak. Those present, and the supporters of the 'Manifesto' lack heavies in the basic sciences. Too heavy in social and behavioral sciences.

    There is also a tendency for them to argue positive conclusions where there is a lack of evidence and appeal to anecdotal evidence as in the following;

    Source: http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science



    14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.

    © Copyright Original Source



    I do not think they are current in the science of the mind-brain relationship. The current limits of science in this and other disciplines should not be used to reach anecdotal conclusions.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-19-2015, 09:02 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Just found this which I subtitle: "From the Frying Pan, Into the Fire"

      I'll come back later with comments - as soon as I've studied it some more.

      Feel free to comment in the meantime.

      http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science

      Jorge
      Okay, so I've studied it a bit more (not too much - other things to do) and I have the following quick comments:

      I applaud their open, long-overdue admission that, "5. However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality."

      They include a number of scattered tidbits of truth throughout the document - truths that folks in the ID-Creationist community have long recognized. The only novelty for this flock of PhDs et al. is to finally come out of the closet - Big Deal!

      It will be interesting, however, to see if any of these people are EXPELLED!!! for having the audacity to speak out against the Establishment's worldview. I'm willing to place a wager that they are all tenured, retired or similar. I also noticed that they very smartly avoided saying anything against the Reverent Mother of Materialism, namely, Evolution.

      Other than that, this "Manifesto" is NAT (New Age Trash - my term). The margins of this screen would not be able to contain the plethora of reasons proving that last statement. Nor do I have the time to list them all.

      As just one example: "15. d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds."

      Note the upper-case "One Mind", suggesting Pantheism or some other anti-Christian voodoo mumbo-jumbo. This all reminded me of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" (upper case). God-substitute, anyone?

      In short, these people appear to have realized that Materialism is a bankrupt dead end and that "something" must exist to transcend it. Again, big freagin' deal - Creationists have known this for centuries. The "solution" of these "learned people", however, is merely death of a different color.

      Would I sign this document? Not for all the tea in China.
      What would I change in this Manifesto in order to sign it? Essentially everything.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Just found this which I subtitle: "From the Frying Pan, Into the Fire"

        I'll come back later with comments - as soon as I've studied it some more.

        Feel free to comment in the meantime.

        http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science

        Jorge
        Modern science is methodologically naturalistic and materialistic.

        So what?

        Do you have a functional manner of bringing the Supernatural into it?

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          What the bee-jeebers is "Post-Materialist" paradigm? Could someone elucidate?

          Thanks!

          K54

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            What the bee-jeebers is "Post-Materialist" paradigm? Could someone elucidate?

            Thanks!

            K54
            Good question! This conference and the manifesto smells of 'Mystic Tofu.'
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              What the bee-jeebers is "Post-Materialist" paradigm? Could someone elucidate?

              Thanks!

              K54
              I would assume that it is somehow related to Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute's diatribe against "scientific materialism" which can best be seen in their Wedge Document.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I would assume that it is somehow related to Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute's diatribe against "scientific materialism" which can best be seen in their Wedge Document.
                So "Post-Materialism" = ontological Materialism?

                IIRC, re: consciousness, ontological naturalists/materialists hold an extreme reductionist approach. I.e, we will eventually discover the collection of neurons/synapses that determine "us".

                The article seems to me to imply some kind of preternatural-ism.

                K54
                Last edited by klaus54; 02-19-2015, 01:14 PM. Reason: typos

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  What the bee-jeebers is "Post-Materialist" paradigm? Could someone elucidate?

                  Thanks!

                  K54
                  Seems pretty obvious to me what these jokers mean.

                  A POST-Materialism paradigm refers to a paradigm for replacing the present (essentially) purely Materialistic paradigm --- you know, the present paradigm that many here at TWeb have fought against me tooth-n-nail ... the present paradigm that many here at TWeb deny exists... the present paradigm that is a mixture of good science with bad religion and then dressed up to be "ALL SCIENCE" ... the present paradigm that greases the path to deny Biblical Christianity/Creationism --- THAT paradigm.

                  Methodological Materialism/Naturalism is merely a watered-down version, the operational version of the full-blown Ontological Materialism/Naturalism. Not that I'm expecting any agreement in this crowd.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Just found this which I subtitle: "From the Frying Pan, Into the Fire"

                    I'll come back later with comments - as soon as I've studied it some more.

                    Feel free to comment in the meantime.

                    http://www.opensciences.org/about/ma...ialist-science

                    Jorge
                    Well, if by freeing themselves from materialism, they manage to explain even one thing, they will be ahead of you Jorge. (I don't count rants as explanations for anything.)
                    Last edited by rwatts; 02-19-2015, 02:15 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was immediately put off after seeing "Gary Schwartz" highlighted in the intro. Finding Rupert Sheldrake and Mario Beauregard as co-authors didn't help. But I started reading it anyway, only to find a blatant error in the second line: methodological naturalism is not materialism. The third line contains another error (reductionism is not an assumption of science). They also misrepresent QM as I understand it, buy into Schwartz's flawed and unverified 'research' into telekinesis, and fall for hot-reading. The whole thing is a waste of time, and about what I expected from a biased incompetent, a pseudoscientist and a creationist collaborator.

                      Roy
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        The only novelty for this flock of PhDs et al. is to finally come out of the closet - Big Deal!
                        Come out of the closet? They were never in it. Schwartz and Sheldrake have been purveying this sort of fluff for years.

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                          Well, if by freeing themselves from materialism, they manage to explain even one thing, they will be ahead of you Jorge. (I don't count rants as explanations for anything.)
                          WOW, what scholarly input! I'm dazzled and floored by the brilliance!

                          Stay away, Duffus!

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            I was immediately put off after seeing "Gary Schwartz" highlighted in the intro. Finding Rupert Sheldrake and Mario Beauregard as co-authors didn't help. But I started reading it anyway, only to find a blatant error in the second line: methodological naturalism is not materialism. The third line contains another error (reductionism is not an assumption of science). They also misrepresent QM as I understand it, buy into Schwartz's flawed and unverified 'research' into telekinesis, and fall for hot-reading. The whole thing is a waste of time, and about what I expected from a biased incompetent, a pseudoscientist and a creationist collaborator.

                            Roy
                            So you found a few errors - big deal! I stopped counting after 50.

                            Besides, you failed to note the big tamale: these jokers remain subscribed to Materialism, only that they want to replace Total Materialism with a mix of Materialism and New Age Voodoo.

                            And just think, they all have PhD's from "accredited" institutions.

                            Here's betting the farm that that last one swooshed right past ya!

                            BTW, did ya ever recover from the evidence that I provided showing that "survival of the fittest" has indeed been used (and continues) to explain/justify homosexuality? I wouldn't want you to miss it.

                            I do thank you for changing your sig.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Come out of the closet? They were never in it. Schwartz and Sheldrake have been purveying this sort of fluff for years.

                              Roy
                              Not in this manner. They are trying to get every Tom-Dick-and-Harry-PhD-scientist to sign their name supporting this "Manifesto". They've already got 100+ signatures of other wackos like themselves.

                              Jorge

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              212 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X