Anti-Neocons Forum

atlantaiconoclast wrote:There is nothing in the scientific method that excludes the possibility of a non-material force being behind evolution.

Science has pretty well demonstrated that there is no need for it.

That is simply not true. Science has not even begun to be able to explain the hard problem, which is the presence of consciousness. And positing a non-material force or consciousness as a shaper of evolution does address HOW different forms come to differ. I believe Dr. Sheldrake's Morphic resonance theory, provides a model for how consciousness shapes evolution. We are so arrogant to think science has it all figured out.

atlantaiconoclast wrote:There is nothing in the scientific method that excludes the possibility of a non-material force being behind evolution.

Doronjo: I corrected your post. I never said that shit. atlantaiconoclast did.

atlantaiconoclast wrote:That is simply not true. Science has not even begun to be able to explain the hard problem, which is the presence of consciousness.

Yeah, but the absence of an explanation is not evidence of a non-material force or a god.

BTW, I have never heard any scientist claim that we have all the answers or that everything has been solved.

Phys wrote:Doronjo: I corrected your post. I never said that shit. atlantaiconoclast did.

Sorry Phys, I knew atlantaiconoclast wrote that. I must have pressed the wrong "Quote" icon. I should preview my posts.

Anyway, I fixed it.

Doronjo wrote:Yeah, but the absence of an explanation is not evidence of a god or a non-material force.

In the absence of an explanation for non-material force is certainly a reason to do more experiments or further research like gravity.

atlantaiconoclast, let's define terms:

semantics
noun
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

why
adverb
1. for what reason

how
adverb
1. in what way or manner; by what means.

You are using circular reasoning when you say that science must exclude anything that does not fit the materialist model, and that to do otherwise, is unscientific.

atlantaiconoclast, you just pulled that out of your ass. I never made that claim.

just one more definition for you:

circular reasoning
noun
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion

The people that are the most guilty of this fallacy are religious people.

atlantaiconoclast wrote: http://www.sheldrake.org/research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more info that runs contrary to the dominant materialist model
I challenge the pseudo-skeptics here to look at the empirical evidence, and please explain away the findings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; his scandalous TED presentation on ten dogmas of modern science

http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/tedx ... anned-talk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more info about the talk's controversy

I was unaware of Dr. Sheldrake and his “scandalous” views, but I enjoyed his TED talk and will take a closer look at his research when time permits. I certainly agree with him (and you) that an illicit materialistic bias pervades academia.

Doronjo wrote:Yeah, but the absence of an explanation is not evidence of a non-material force or a god.

Very true. And in fact some pretty powerful arguments have been advanced against the very possibility that one aspect of consciousness--namely, rational cognition--might be purely physical. See here.