Manifesto for a Post-Materialistic Science

[Jorge]

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

[shunyadragon]

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.

[Jorge]

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

[klaus54]

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

[klaus54]

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

Thanks!

K54

[shunyadragon]

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

Thanks!

K54

Good question! This conference and the manifesto smells of 'Mystic Tofu.'

[rogue06]

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.

[klaus54]

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

[Jorge]

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

[rwatts]

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.)

[Roy]

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

[Roy]

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]

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

[Jorge]

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

[Jorge]

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