T_Clark

Agreed.

You forgot about all the secret bannings. They banned T Clark and he had to sneak back on.

I agree, at least, that materialists in 1905 believed that. I don't think saying that the universe is comprehensible is the same as saying there are u...

The way I said it was awkward and potentially misleading. Your formulation is probably better. Kant himself wrote "All phenomena, then, are continuous...

I think the point of Russell's essay was that, even though there are scientific laws, the idea of causation is unnecessary. I guess great minds think ...

Isn't science people trying to understand the universe? Why would we do that if we didn't think the universe is comprehendible? Even if it might not b...

While you're at it, I recommend Campbell's Chunky Hungry Man Beef and Bean Chili. You won't have to cook at all. If you're in a hurry, you can eat it ...

Sure, I'll kill my children; my wife; my brothers and sister and their children; my step mother; my friends; people I respect and admire; and then eig...

I have argued before that the idea of causation is not very useful. Didn't you and I discuss that previously? In 1912, Bertrand Russell wrote "On the ...

Scientists don't do metaphysics. As Collingwood wrote, metaphysics describes the underlying assumptions that scientists follow while doing science. Th...

I forgot to say thank you. Thank you.

Oh, @"Jackson", you're just so cranky and cute. I want to give you a big hug.

As I noted in the OP, there may be some overlap, but I think 3 and 6 are different. That's true.

I am not a materialist, although I think most scientists are and were in 1905. As I noted in the OP, I want to keep this focused on absolute presuppos...

How does philosophical naturalism differ substantially from materialism and physicalism? Yes, I thought of that but didn't address it. I think I'm sav...

My line by line response. My response in italics: is not true: the universe cannot be understood by human beings, at least not metaphysically (which i...

As noted in the OP, this discussion is about a materialist view of reality.

Here's a line by line response in italics. I am mostly responding how I think Collingwood would respond: I don't think this is an absolute presupposit...

No, I thought you were fine. Are you disappointed that I don't think you were smug and self-righteous.

America's Test Kitchen says Goya beans are better than beans prepared from dried beans.

This is my interpretation - humans are made up of substances. As I noted in the OP, we are discussing the absolute presuppositions of a materialist ap...

Here are examples that Collingwood, in "An Essay on Metaphysics" identified as Kant's absolute presuppositions: ...between any two terms in a series, ...

Agreed, but it's not the only absolute presupposition of a materialist approach to science. I thought I was being clear. I hope I didn't confuse thing...

I've been checking in now and then. It looks like you're having a good time.

The issue, for the purposes of this discussion, is whether or not these two presuppositions are absolute presuppositions of a materialist point of vie...

No, I'm not an advocate. I picked it because I thought it would be the easiest to discuss and also because I think it matches most people's, including...

Are you saying that the universe is homogeneous? I think that's probably true. It is my understanding that matter is well distributed within the obser...

I am proposing the items in my list as the underlying assumptions, i.e. absolute presuppositions, of materialist/physicalist/realist physics. As I not...

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of a materialist viewpoint.

Item 5 on my list - "The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times" If by "unsure" you mean you're not sure it's true, of co...

Also, to be fair, it's the engineers, not the architects.

They are trying to make San Francisco more cosmopolitan, so they modelled it on that tower in Pisa.

If you need testimony to that effect, I'd be happy to help.

I looked up INTJ. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gandalf were identified with that classification.

@"praxis" In this regard, take a look at the "Internal thought police - a very bad idea" thread. It will give you plenty of opportunity to feel self-r...

I never took it. I assume "J" stands for "jerk." If so, you're probably right.

Oh, good. Now I don't have to respond. Thanks.

Ok?

No need for concurrence. Just knowing I'm right is enough.

I know how you feel. There is nothing better than a self-righteous, smug sense of superiority to get the day started right.

As R.G. Collingwood wrote long after Peirce, and as I quoted earlier in this thread:

Even he is smartre than the guys I read.

I'll do the same thing for breakfast I do every day - drink ice coffee while reading bad philosophy.

For me, the Tao Te Ching is primarily, not incidentally, a metaphysical document. It is fundamentally about the nature of reality. Ontology. Metaphysi...

It's been a long time since I took the test, more than 20 years. If I remember correctly I was an AHOL.

Nuff said.

Yes. I know I was bad. But I stand by my position that they both have mixed up their physics and their metaphysics.

Here's a link to the SEP article on Chinese Metaphysics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-metaphysics/ "Dao" is mentioned 43 times. Here's t...

They're physicists, not philosophers. Most physicists don't take metaphysics seriously.

Let me see if I can figure this out: International Noodle Tasting Journal Iranian Non-Traditional Juggling I never took Judo. If no-one tells Jamal Is...