Is assuming naturalism/materialism scientific?

I'm doing some humanities homework and I came across Sir Francis Bacon. One of his main points was that in order to do proper science you must leave all preconcieved notions and biased behind. But I realize we assume so many things when we come to the scientific table nowadays based on philosophy, and not science. Mainly I mean naturalism (everything that is here arrived naturally) and materialism(only matter exists). Like ghosts for example. There are millions of eyewitness accounts of Ghosts, but, since they can't be explained materialistically or through naturalism anyone who believes in them are seen as fools, or tries to do scientific research into them are seen as quacks. Not based on the fact that it spits in the face of some real observational science, but the fact that it craps on some biased philosophy. Now I don't even believe in ghosts, but do you get my point?

What do you think?

nobody interested?

The tests used to find ghosts are based on psuedo science and not real science. They make far too many assumptions. If you disagree with something that has been scientifically tested you can repeat the test and find out for yourself if it's true or not. People also believed in succubus/incubus for years but there is a more reasonable answer for sightings of these that has less assumptions and makes more sense. Ghost hunting makes a lot of assumptions without having any physical evidence to back it up. There very well could be ghosts and they have magic powers that stop us from seeing them, but what makes more sense? That somebody saw a shadow and thought it was a ghost?or that magical ghosts actually exist?

I think both are scientific assumptions. Pondering the possible supernatural aspects of existence is cool and all, but science is only interested in what is observable and testable. You have to be able to recreate a phenomenon for it to be properly tested, and then you have to be able to explain it thoroughly.

Read the first chapters of this book, it's a decent one for an introduction to the problems faced by the philosophy of science:

http://pt.scribd.com/doc/12834586/Chalmers-AF-1999-What-is-This-Thing-Called-Science-3e-0872204537

The tests used to find ghosts are based on psuedo science and not real science. They make far too many assumptions. If you disagree with something that has been scientifically tested you can repeat the test and find out for yourself if it's true or not. People also believed in succubus/incubus for years but there is a more reasonable answer for sightings of these that has less assumptions and makes more sense. Ghost hunting makes a lot of assumptions without having any physical evidence to back it up. There very well could be ghosts and they have magic powers that stop us from seeing them, but what makes more sense? That somebody saw a shadow and thought it was a ghost?or that magical ghosts actually exist?

Bane_09

What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science? All scientific theory/hypothesis makes certain assumptions in creation and changes the formula of testing to make it more accurate. Evolving in a sort. Again your philosophy that the super natural is unlikely that materialism/naturalism is what is rea;, and not empirical science is the reason you believe that "magical ghosts" is unlikely. Again I don't believe in Ghosts. I just think the scrutiny of it's investigation is not based on science but bias.

ITT; stupid people thinking they understand science

What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?kneeha

"Evidence" by scientific standards is not only observable, but measurable, testable and most importantly, reproducible. An "eyewitness account" is meaningless to science. Science demands hard evidence that can be reproduced and verified by anyone able to recreate the scenario/experiment. Naturalism/materialism is not an assumed position, it is the default position. Falsification, doing everything in one's power to prove something false, is how modern science works. No longer do we assume something to be the case and try to find something to support it. Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher, not a scientist, so his position on the matter of "natural" and "real" are quite irrelevant to science. Scientists observe and study the natural world as it exists in front of them... they don't posit a hypothesis and support it with clever wordplay.Zeviander

You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?

ITT; stupid people thinking they understand science

LostProphetFLCL

ITT; stupid people thinking they understand science

LostProphetFLCL

[QUOTE="kneeha"]What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?Zeviander

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="kneeha"]What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?kneeha

Might wanna learn more about what pseudo science is. Astrology is pseudoscience. Feng Shui is pseudoscience.

[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Those proponents of the existence of ghosts do not use falsification science to support their assumptions. They have an idea, "ghosts exist" and find "evidence", no matter how shaky or vague it is, to support that assumption. They don't go out of their way to find evidence that proves ghosts do NOT exist, and then by process of elimination, find a piece of evidence that suggests they do. The existence of things "preternatural" is not a problem. Ghosts fall into this category... but by definition, have not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt (anything that suggests they do not exist has to be considered especially if it has not been falsified yet) to exist on any way. Ockham's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the correct one. "Ghosts are a figment of people's wild imaginations" is the simplest explanation, and the one best supported by the lack of concrete, non-falsifiable evidence in ghosts' favor.wis3boi

Might wanna learn more about what pseudo science is. Astrology is pseudoscience. Feng Shui is pseudoscience.

You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).kneeha

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?kneeha

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]"Evidence" by scientific standards is not only observable, but measurable, testable and most importantly, reproducible. An "eyewitness account" is meaningless to science. Science demands hard evidence that can be reproduced and verified by anyone able to recreate the scenario/experiment. Naturalism/materialism is not an assumed position, it is the default position. Falsification, doing everything in one's power to prove something false, is how modern science works. No longer do we assume something to be the case and try to find something to support it. Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher, not a scientist, so his position on the matter of "natural" and "real" are quite irrelevant to science. Scientists observe and study the natural world as it exists in front of them... they don't posit a hypothesis and support it with clever wordplay.kneeha

You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="kneeha"]What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?kneeha

Good Quote from Razor though . kneeha

[QUOTE="kneeha"]Good Quote from Razor though . Zeviander

:lol: @ creationists. It's fun watchign them grasp for straws in a world explaining away their fantasies

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="kneeha"]What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?kneeha

you do realize what Occams razor is right?

it should be read as "a razor owned by Occam"

not as a name like Occam Razor(who isnt a person btw)

this leads me to believe you have no idea what Occams razor is.

okay I'm taking this from my Mind, Body And Machines class, here's the terminology we're using to go about this.

Physicalism, not naturalism or materialism because then we get muddled up as to what is matter and can it exist, is that something exists because it is explained by the science of physics. However, because our model of physics in incomplete/potentially wrong, we can not use Physicalism as a way of solidly explaining the universe. Thus we must look towards idealism and dualism to see if we can find anything there that can help us figure ourselves out.

As for ghosts, I wasn't really paying that much attention when someone brought the matter up in last weeks class because I was still distraught over the theft and then re-theiving of my car AT THE BLOODY UNIVERSITY but I believe I heard the likes of self astral projection or some nonsense. I dunno, that sounds silly and they were probably saying something very interesting but it isn't sticking with me at the mo'.

[QUOTE="kneeha"]You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).Zeviander

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?kneeha

Reaching a conclusion first and finding evidence to support it is NOT how the scientific method works.

[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Those proponents of the existence of ghosts do not use falsification science to support their assumptions. They have an idea, "ghosts exist" and find "evidence", no matter how shaky or vague it is, to support that assumption. They don't go out of their way to find evidence that proves ghosts do NOT exist, and then by process of elimination, find a piece of evidence that suggests they do. The existence of things "preternatural" is not a problem. Ghosts fall into this category... but by definition, have not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt (anything that suggests they do not exist has to be considered especially if it has not been falsified yet) to exist on any way. Ockham's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the correct one. "Ghosts are a figment of people's wild imaginations" is the simplest explanation, and the one best supported by the lack of concrete, non-falsifiable evidence in ghosts' favor.frannkzappa

you do realize what Occams razor is right?

it should be read as "a razor owned by Occam"

not as a name like Occam Razor(who isnt a person btw)

this leads me to believe you have no idea what Occams razor is.

Just saying from the outside looking in It seemed liked a lot scientific conclusion seems to be based on philosophy and assumption and not empriricism. kneeha

Well modern science roots itself in the study of the physical world, its not as if the non physical doesn't exist, science simply cannot say on the subject either way. Though there is something to be said about naturalism which is inherently self defeating.

[QUOTE="kneeha"]Just saying from the outside looking in It seemed liked a lot scientific conclusion seems to be based on philosophy and assumption and not empriricism. Zeviander

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="kneeha"]Just saying from the outside looking in It seemed liked a lot scientific conclusion seems to be based on philosophy and assumption and not empriricism. kneeha

Methods of falsification look at major and minor points in theories/hypotheses, and then proceed to test if they are even possible under the conditions put forth in the theory/hypothesis. If they fail to be shown possible, the theory/hypothesis takes a major hit. If they are not shown that way, then it ends up helping the credibility of the hypothesis/theory. Methods of falsification do not set out with a single purpose to show something is false. They set up the experiment to simply discover whether it is false or not.

You compare these types of experiments to "experiments" where people try and set up experiments/observations/whatever they hell they all them where they try to collect data that suggests the existence of things like ghosts. The difference here is of course that they are trying to bend their experiments to agree their agenda. It becomes very blatant when our understanding of the possibility of ghosts lands in the realm of nothing. Without anything to test with falsification methods, these "experiments" along with ones of any other sort of that nature are rightly scrutinized.

[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Where on the "outside" are you exactly? Science as it exists today is wholly empirical and the method of falsification, where all experiments are directed towards disproving a hypothesis, rather than proving it, is extremely important in reducing bias. Things such as double-blind studies were designed so that the actual-factual science can shine through any potential human error.lx_theo

Methods of falsification look at major and minor points in theories/hypotheses, and then proceed to test if they are even possible under the conditions put forth in the theory/hypothesis. If they fail to be shown possible, the theory/hypothesis takes a major hit. If they are not shown that way, then it ends up helping the credibility of the hypothesis/theory. Methods of falsification do not set out with a single purpose to show something is false. They set up the experiment to simply discover whether it is false or not.

You compare these types of experiments to "experiments" where people try and set up experiments/observations/whatever they hell they all them where they try to collect data that suggests the existence of things like ghosts. The difference here is of course that they are trying to bend their experiments to agree their agenda. It becomes very blatant when our understanding of the possibility of ghosts lands in the realm of nothing. Without anything to test with falsification methods, these "experiments" along with ones of any other sort of that nature are rightly scrutinized.

See you believe Ghosts are fake and are silly to believe in therefore the scientific study into the phenomena is silly. You assume that the science behind it is garbage(which it might be) but have you ever really looked into the experiments people do to prove the existence of ghosts(I haven't)? I bet not/ But you assume and judge these people as agenda driven lunies without taking a good look at the evidence. Not for scientific reason but because of your own philosophical bias.

Shoot maybe I'm wrong bro,(sure wouldn't be the first time) I don't know whats going on through your mind. But really think before you respond. A real honest self examination.