Red
Well-Known Member
People say that about me a lot.
Well, I don't know you, but haven't noticed that based on this forum. I guess people say that about me a lot as well, however.
There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition of scientific materialism. How would you distinguish it from methodological naturalism?
Since I actually just had to look up "methodical naturalism", it's a new concept to me, and until or unless I study the concept, I'm at a loss to really answer your question. I do believe it is possible for humans to access both abilities and knowledge other then by the scientific method. I had an aunt, who was a nun, who in the days leading up to her death, levitated several times. We witnessed this. We were not hallucinating, we witnessed this. In fact, I believe there should surely be an rational explanation for this, and once found, it should not overturn science at all, but should instead constitute a learning opportunity where our understanding of the nature of reality, and our own nature, is concerned, but it's hardly a reproducible phenomenon, and only serves to hint at abilities not generally acknowledged by science. Studying such things should expand our understanding of reality. But, in general, all such phenomena are dismissed as impossible.
There was a Russian woman, who was filmed by Russian scientists demonstrating PK. I do not believe fakery was ever demonstrated to be taking place. There are several YouTube videos of this, so people can at least make some judgement of what they are seeing. There has to be a natural explanation for that ability, but many scientists place it, and other so-called "psychic abilities" over in the "woo" category. I think we do a disservice to the goal of better understanding the universe, and our own nature, by relegating all this to "woo", that it is somehow all fake and not worth looking at for one second, or worth trying to incorporate it into models of reality. I suspect this will change. But these are difficult to reproduce in a lab, or summon at will, and parapsychology, despite the existence of academic departments and institutes devoted to such studies, it's not exactly highly regarded, or generally accepted as worthy of any study at all.
Is there a difference between scientific materialism and scientism?
Well, I often have my own definitions for terms, and in the case of Scientism, I define it as the attitude that only through the scientific method can we learn anything fundamental about nature and the universe. I guess I see scientism as raising science to the status of a faith, but I would have to think about this more. There may not be a substantive difference in my mind between the two.
Scientific materialism excludes as at all worthy of study phenomena that could be studied, in fact are studied, if we think of disciplines like parapsychology, and scientism is a belief that science alone results in accurate pictures of nature and the universe.
I have just seen, or myself experienced, too many things that come under the heading of "psychic phenomena" to be as easily dismissive as they usually are by those who see it all as "woo", as utter nonsense. Experience won't allow me to do that. But I do believe such things point to a better understanding of our own nature, and perhaps the nature of consciousness and the influence of mind on the material universe, so, really, I see such phenomenon as not outside reality at all, but simply not yet incorporated into our understanding of reality. It's not that they threaten science at all, they just go against the philosophical grain of science, as it were. And since they are often experienced subjectively, and can't be reproduced at will in a lab, I can at least recognize that's a big handicap.