Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[Goat]

Consciousness is the exception because every who can think has it. Why should I believe anything else without verification?

This is the point that keeps being missed:
I'm not arguing against "verification"; I'm fine with looking for verification. I'm arguing against the idea that the physical senses are the only valid form of verification.

Consciousness is proof positive that the physical senses aren't the end-all be-all of verification. We have experience of things (like consciousness) that are not physically verifiable, but are still rational to believe. But Scientism simply ignores this fact.

This is over and above the fact that no one has ever given any good reason why the senses are the only way to verify things. To say that this is "the exception" is to assume anyone ever gave a reason why we should take "only the senses" as a rule in the first place. This is not the case.

And, as I've pointed out previously, the very idea is self-contradictory. If one accepts Scientism as valid, then one is accepting something which is not verified by the senses (there is no physical evidence for Scientism). "Scientism is true.", therefore, is as incoherent as "No sentence has five words.".

But, if you agree that personal experience trumps Scientism's demand for physical evidence with regard to consciousness, then you've already rejected Scientism. It would be experience, not sensory data, that we are using as our source of knowledge.

I must wonder why you don't present your case for verification for this 'non-physical evidence' then. Consciousness IS physical. You can't have consciousnesses without a brain. On the other hand, evidence can be provided (repeatable, testable, and physical evidence) that the senses, and consciousness can be fooled.

Without an input of real world data, and a way to test conclusions.. how can you show that you are not just making thing up in one big fantasy world?

[Jester]

I must wonder why you don't present your case for verification for this 'non-physical evidence' then.

That is exactly what I've done.
I've shown that insisting that all evidence is physical breaks down into self-contradictions. That is akin to a mathematical proof for non-physical evidence.

Then, after doing that, I showed some basic facts of life that contradict the idea that all evidence is physical.

This is over and above the fact that no one has offered any reason, other than a false dichotomy fallacy, to think that evidence is always physical.

But, I'm not entirely sure what you are requesting here. Perhaps you agree that there is good reason to think that there is such a thing as non-physical evidence, but are just hoping to see some?

If so, let's talk about consciousness:

Consciousness IS physical.

Whether or not that is true (it's not), it has nothing to do with my point.

I wasn't talking about whether or not conscious is physical. I was talking about how we know it exists. There is no physical test for consciousness (even if it were physical). Neuroscientists simply infer this from the fact that their patients talk and behave in certain ways.

Absolutely nothing in a brain scan tells you that consciousness exists. It wouldn't provide one iota of evidence to someone (like Alex Rosenberg) who doesn't believe in consciousness. It shows that the brain controls the body, and which patterns control what things (including test subjects' reports about what they were thinking/feeling at the time).

But, if you don't already believe the test subjects are conscious, neurological experiments based on the assumption that they are conscious isn't evidence.

So, even if consciousness were physical (though it is not), there is no physical evidence in support of that idea. You just have to take the test subjects' word for it.

Or, much better, trust your own experience. If you stop to think about it, that's the real reason we believe in consciousness: we experience it ourselves. This is the same reason we believe in the physical world–we experience that, too.

Setting aside sophists who have been locked in an academic tower too long, both common sense and good logic tell us that experience is the basis of our knowledge. And if Scientism has to claim that we can't accept consciousness until neurology gives us a better reason than trusting their test subjects' word, so much the worse for Scientism.

As Scientism is a self-contradictory philosophy anyway; its not too surprising that it gives us completely silly advice about real life.

Without an input of real world data, and a way to test conclusions.. how can you show that you are not just making thing up in one big fantasy world?

Okay, I'm not going to bother going back to count the number of times that I've already pointed out that I agree that we should use "real world data".

I completely agree that we should start with what we know and experience directly. I thought it was you who wanted to start somewhere else. You keep saying that we should start instead with this arbitrary idea that "real world data" means physical data, and no other kind.

If you want to start there, you need to answer three issues:

1. Is there any reason to think that? That is, is there any evidence (at all) that backs up this idea that the physical senses are the end-all be-all of evidence?

- If not, why don't we start with the real world data of our experience, rather than an arbitrary claim?

2. Whether or not you are personally aware of the reasons why consciousness isn't physical, what physical evidence is there that consciousness exists? If you throw out your personal experience of consciousness as evidence, what's left for someone who denies it?

3. Why haven't we dealt with the fact that, by your view of evidence, we should reject your own view of evidence (because there's no physical evidence supporting your claim)?

- This last seems one more reason to start with the real world data of experience, rather than this completely unsupported claim that all evidence is physical.

[Goat]

I must wonder why you don't present your case for verification for this 'non-physical evidence' then.

That is exactly what I've done.

I disagree. That might be what you TRIED to do, but , as far as I can see, your efforts failed.

I've shown that insisting that all evidence is physical breaks down into self-contradictions. That is akin to a mathematical proof for non-physical evidence.

No, you haven't. You made bad rationalizations, but that is hardly showing things are 'self contradictions'.

Then, after doing that, I showed some basic facts of life that contradict the idea that all evidence is physical.

There is a difference between making a claim, and showing 'basic facts of life'. As far as I see, you have not been able to back up your opinion with actual facts.

[Jester]

I disagree. That might be what you TRIED to do, but , as far as I can see, your efforts failed.

If you are going to claim this, you need to show why by responding logically to my arguments, rather than simply claiming this.

I've shown that insisting that all evidence is physical breaks down into self-contradictions. That is akin to a mathematical proof for non-physical evidence.

No, you haven't. You made bad rationalizations, but that is hardly showing things are 'self contradictions'.

Again, I need more than a claim. Your standard of evidence fails its own test. This needs to be addressed by more than a denial.

Then, after doing that, I showed some basic facts of life that contradict the idea that all evidence is physical.

There is a difference between making a claim, and showing 'basic facts of life'. As far as I see, you have not been able to back up your opinion with actual facts.

You've agreed that consciousness exists, and you haven't responded at all to my argument that there is no physical evidence for it. And, very significantly, we've seen no physical evidence at all for it. That was exactly my point.

Simply claiming that I am wrong isn't debating.



So, to make this clear: I'd like a reason for the claim that the physical is the whole of all evidence. So far, that hasn't been shown to be more than a completely arbitrary claim. No evidence whatsoever has been given in support of it.

And, since I agree that we shouldn't believe things without a good reason to do so, I'm not willing to accept this arbitrary claim simply because someone claims that I'm wrong. I need something more than that.

So, is there any evidence, at all, to support this idea that physical experience is the only form of evidence?

[Goat]

I disagree. That might be what you TRIED to do, but , as far as I can see, your efforts failed.

If you are going to claim this, you need to show why by responding logically to my arguments, rather than simply claiming this.

I've shown that insisting that all evidence is physical breaks down into self-contradictions. That is akin to a mathematical proof for non-physical evidence.

No, you haven't. You made bad rationalizations, but that is hardly showing things are 'self contradictions'.

Again, I need more than a claim. Your standard of evidence fails its own test. This needs to be addressed by more than a denial.

Then, after doing that, I showed some basic facts of life that contradict the idea that all evidence is physical.

There is a difference between making a claim, and showing 'basic facts of life'. As far as I see, you have not been able to back up your opinion with actual facts.

You've agreed that consciousness exists, and you haven't responded at all to my argument that there is no physical evidence for it. And, very significantly, we've seen no physical evidence at all for it. That was exactly my point.

Simply claiming that I am wrong isn't debating.



So, to make this clear: I'd like a reason for the claim that the physical is the whole of all evidence. So far, that hasn't been shown to be more than a completely arbitrary claim. No evidence whatsoever has been given in support of it.

And, since I agree that we shouldn't believe things without a good reason to do so, I'm not willing to accept this arbitrary claim simply because someone claims that I'm wrong. I need something more than that.

So, is there any evidence, at all, to support this idea that physical experience is the only form of evidence?

You have not shown where it fails. That's the point. You mischaracterize what I do claim, and build a huge straw man to attack it. I don't think you DO understand what I am saying, since you just don't address what my point of view is.

You complicate things.. and you attack this fictional thing you claim is my stance.

[Jester]

You have not shown where it fails. That's the point.

If you feel this is the case, you need to be more specific than this.
I've pointed out direct self-contradictions in the idea that all evidence is physical. You are free to disagree with this, but simply saying "your efforts failed" is not a response. It neither helps me understand your position and reasons for disagreeing, nor deals with my actual arguments.

Debating means presenting your case, after all. And I've seen no evidence at all which counters my points.

So, to try that again:

1. The demand that all evidence is physical is unsupported by physical evidence. Therefore, it is, by its own standard, completely unsupported by evidence.
2. There is no physical evidence for consciousness. Therefore, this standard contradicts belief that consciousness exists.

If you think these arguments fail, please give your reason. Otherwise, I have no reason at all to think your appraisal is correct, and you have no reason at all to think that I don't have a solid refutation of your argument.

You mischaracterize what I do claim, and build a huge straw man to attack it.

If that is the case, please explain exactly the difference between your position, and how I have represented you. I'll be careful to address it correctly.

You complicate things.. and you attack this fictional thing you claim is my stance.

My responses would be a lot simpler if you'd clarify your actual stance.
State it directly, so that I can be clear.

But, even then, this is wrong. I've been arguing for the simple, common sense approach taken by most every human throughout history: that we trust our experience unless there's a good reason not to. An uneducated child from a tribe in the Congo could understand my position.

When people come in with ivory-tower philosophies about verification that crowbar all experience in to a scientific model through verbal trickery, and appeal to complex theories in order explain why our basic experience of non-physical things are illusions, it strikes me as very strange when they then accuse me of complicating things.

What's complicated is untangling the web of unfounded intellectual snobbery that modern promoters of Scientism (i.e. Dawkins, Krauss, and Rosenberg) keep throwing at people through their vitriolic slogans.

But, even that rests on a very simple question: "How do they know that we should only trust our physical senses, instead of all experience equally?"

And the answer is equally simple: "Dogmatic commitment to materialism."

In my view, it really is as simple as that. It's only ever been my sense of courtesy that keeps me from being this direct about it. But, if you think there's something more subtle and complex going on that I've missed, let me know what it is. I'll try to keep my response simple enough for your tastes.





But, I do want to add to this: whatever your stance happens to be, we've seen no evidence (physical or not) for it. So, whether or not my objections apply to your particular position, there is no reason to accept it (nor could I possibly, until I know what it actually is).

[Goat]

You have not shown where it fails. That's the point.

If you feel this is the case, you need to be more specific than this.
I've pointed out direct self-contradictions in the idea that all evidence is physical. You are free to disagree with this, but simply saying "your efforts failed" is not a response. It neither helps me understand your position and reasons for disagreeing, nor deals with my actual arguments.

Debating means presenting your case, after all. And I've seen no evidence at all which counters my points.

So, to try that again:

1. The demand that all evidence is physical is unsupported by physical evidence. Therefore, it is, by its own standard, completely unsupported by evidence.
2. There is no physical evidence for consciousness. Therefore, this standard contradicts belief that consciousness exists.

Yet, when I ask for a better method to determine if you are right, I get silence.

Oh, by the way, we DO have physical evidence of consciousness. It is known as 'Observing behavior'. That is physical evidence of consciousness. We also have the whole new array of 'watching brain activity' .. also physical evidence of consciousness.

No, we do not know how it works yet.. .. however, that does not mean that the physical evidence we DO have doesn't exist. That is one point that seems to be missed quite often. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we get to discard the evidence we do have.

If you think these arguments fail, please give your reason. Otherwise, I have no reason at all to think your appraisal is correct, and you have no reason at all to think that I don't have a solid refutation of your argument.

I never said that 'physical evidence is all there is'. On the other hand, there is a strong lack of evidence for 'non-physical evidence'. When you provide me with evidence for non-physical evidence, I will be MORE than happy to look at it. Until then, I can only go by what I have. I have asked a number of times for a better methodology when you scorned 'only physical evidence' for understanding the physical world, and got NOTHING back.

You mischaracterize what I do claim, and build a huge straw man to attack it.

If that is the case, please explain exactly the difference between your position, and how I have represented you. I'll be careful to address it correctly.

Simple. Although there might be a way for evidence about the world beyond the physical, there is nothing that can be shown that is 'public knowledge'. We have private testimony, but no way to show that person is correct, and that they are interpreting their experiences correctly .. the 'private knowledge'.

Until such time as someone can come up with a methodology where the 'non-physical' evidence can be public knowledge, and I can check it for myself.. and see it is actual evidence rather than wishful thinking, I will stick to what I can verify for myself, or have someone 'replicate' the results. I know you reject the 'show me' principle.. but that is only methodology I can see for self checking. If someone suggests another methodology to distinguish reality from wishful thinking, I will be more than happy to examine it.

Until someone shows me how I can verify 'non-physical' evidence, I won't accept that non-physical evidence. One thing I have noticed, and it can be shown via public knowledge .. people fool themselves. People can be mistaken. People also can lie.

Until such time as someone can provide me with a method for the so called 'non-physical' evidence that can provide results, I will go for pragmatically, I see DOES provide results.

I will say there are things that are 'non-physical' I call them "IDEAS' and 'CONCEPTS'. There are also emotions.

From a pragmatic point of view, until someone can show that this 'non-physical' evidence isn't just emotion , or wishful thinking.. or an internal dialogue, I will stick to what I can confirm for myself.

Thus far, the method for distinguishing between 'non-physical evidence', emotional reaction, and wishful thinking is lacking.

I would be more than willing to abandon the idea that physical evidence is what is needed to understand the phyiscal world when someone provides me with another method that provides results

[Jester]

Yet, when I ask for a better method to determine if you are right, I get silence.

You want a better method than "this stance contradicts itself"?
So, if I were to tell you "This sentence is false.", you'd want a "better method" to determine if it was a true statement?

What about, "You've provided no evidence at all to support any claim about what evidence is acceptable."?
That's also true.

Oh, by the way, we DO have physical evidence of consciousness. It is known as 'Observing behavior'. That is physical evidence of consciousness. We also have the whole new array of 'watching brain activity' .. also physical evidence of consciousness.

Neither of those things are evidence of consciousness. A computer has behavior, as does a sea-slug. I don't take that as a reason to believe that either of them are conscious.

The only reason to think that other people are conscious is because you already believe in consciousness. If you throw out your personal experience of being conscious, there's nothing about a brain scan that would prove it to you.

Much more importantly, are you seriously arguing that your personal experience with being conscious does not count as evidence? You are saying that, if you didn't watch the behavior of others or look at brain scans, you wouldn't have any reason to think that consciousness exists?

Are you really saying that?

If you think these arguments fail, please give your reason. Otherwise, I have no reason at all to think your appraisal is correct, and you have no reason at all to think that I don't have a solid refutation of your argument.

I never said that 'physical evidence is all there is'.

So, you agree with me that this is not the case?
If so, excellent. We agree on the main point.

If not, my arguments against your disagreement stand whether or not you voiced that position.

On the other hand, there is a strong lack of evidence for 'non-physical evidence'.

This is almost nonsense, in the technical sense.
No one is asking for evidence for evidence. That's absurd. We're asking for evidence of positions.
I've asked for evidence for the position that all evidence is physical. I've received none, and you seem to be backing down from that position (claiming that you've never said it).

So, if you want evidence for the position that not all evidence is physical (which is my actual position), then I've already pointed out two very big ones:
1. Consciousness (behavior and brain scans simply aren't evidence for this), and
2. The fact that the alternative is a self-contracition.

I think we need to appreciate that last point. Whether you're saying it or not, the idea that all evidence is physical refutes itself. So, particularly when you are unwilling to defend that notion, it can be given up.

But that leaves us with only one option left on the table: that some evidence is not physical.

Violla! Evidence for my position.

I have asked a number of times for a better methodology when you scorned 'only physical evidence' for understanding the physical world, and got NOTHING back.

I've presented experience as evidence more than once.
Do you have an argument why experience is literally "NOTHING"? If so, I'd be interested in hearing it.

In fact, I'd like to get to my main point.

You've still offered no evidence whatsoever for the idea that all evidence is physical.
Now, I know, you aren't claiming that. I wouldn't either. There is absolutely no evidence for it, and it has been shown to be false.

So, what, exactly are you trying to convince me of?
That there isn't absolute certainty of my position? That's life.
That I should reject me conscious experience as evidence of consciousness? You're going to need a great argument for that.

Although there might be a way for evidence about the world beyond the physical, there is nothing that can be shown that is 'public knowledge'.

My first thought is: who cares?
If I experience consciousness, am I supposed to throw that out simply because it isn't "public"?

I have many non-physical experiences, and everyone else does as well. So what's the problem?

But, just as important, if you agree that not all evidence is physical, then you've already agreed with me that Scientism is wrong. In fact, you have to agree that Scientism is wrong to accept science.

We have private testimony, but no way to show that person is correct, and that they are interpreting their experiences correctly

That's all we have about anything.
No one has the literal ability to check on every particular claim made by every person. Rather, we trust that people really saw and experienced the things they said they did.

Yes, if we have a reason to doubt that (such as someone else claiming to have found contradictory things), then we'll have to choose, but this is no reason to say "Until I personally check it, I accept no claim.".

But, I suspect, you'll be thinking that this isn't what you were claiming: that you're totally fine with someone else (such as a scientist) checking. But that's trusting someone else's experience ("I did the test, and here are the results.").

I hope it's becoming clear that all knowledge is based on experience. Even scientific knowledge is based on carefully categorized experiences.

So, there are billions of people in the world who've had experiences (all kinds of experiences) that you've not had, and can't personally check. If you're going to throw all those out, why can't they simply reply "Your ignorance is not as good as our knowledge."?

Until such time as someone can come up with a methodology where the 'non-physical' evidence can be public knowledge, and I can check it for myself.. and see it is actual evidence rather than wishful thinking,

It seems here that you are seriously arguing that you don't trust your own experience of consciousness as evidence.

You checked that out and decided that belief in consciousness (unless you watch behavior or see a brain scan) is wishful thinking?

I will stick to what I can verify for myself, or have someone 'replicate' the results.

Wait. Why are you trusting that other person?
How do you know he/she isn't simply wishful thinking?

I know you reject the 'show me' principle.. but that is only methodology I can see for self checking.

Yes, and it is precisely the principle you said you weren't claiming.

Here, it seems very much like the only evidence you accept is physical evidence. That is exactly what the "show me principle" is, after all.

So, do you have any scrap of evidence, at all, no matter how slight, that the "show me principle" is the one to use? How can I check on it? Why should I reject the idea that my experience of consciousness is evidence? What reason is there to think that?

If someone suggests another methodology to distinguish reality from wishful thinking, I will be more than happy to examine it.

What about experience?
I'm sure I've suggested this before. Do you have the slightest reason to reject your own experience simply because you can't show anyone?

Until someone shows me how I can verify 'non-physical' evidence, I won't accept that non-physical evidence.

You can verify it with your own experience.
Are you conscious? Are you thinking right now?
Don't stop to look at your behavior patterns. Don't run to the hospital to get your brain scanned. Just ask yourself if you can verify the claim that you are conscious without appealing to those kinds of tests.

If you answer "yes", that's something outside the "show me principle" that you just verified.

One thing I have noticed, and it can be shown via public knowledge .. people fool themselves. People can be mistaken. People also can lie.

Yes. And one way of being mistaken that could also be a lie (depending on how conscious it is) is called denial.

Dismissing an accurate report is just as incorrect as accepting a bad one, but you seem to think that dismissing all reports insulates you from being wrong.

But, if history is any indicator, you'll want a better method.
What about checking things against your own experience? That makes a great deal of sense, and all it requires is accepting a fact that can be shared publicly: the "show me principle" refutes itself.

I will say there are things that are 'non-physical' I call them "IDEAS' and 'CONCEPTS'. There are also emotions.

Well, this is progress.
I expect that you determined this because you have experience with these things.

But, wait, wouldn't that be non-physical evidence?

From a pragmatic point of view, until someone can show that this 'non-physical' evidence isn't just emotion , or wishful thinking.. or an internal dialogue, I will stick to what I can confirm for myself.

Now, you're moving away from the debate over Scientism and onto whether or not you're willing to accept certain non-physical entities as real.

If you agree that Scientism is indefensible, then I'd be happy to move on to metaphysical principles (such as Sufficient Reason and Ockham's Razor), and take the stance that they aren't simply emotion.

Are you willing to dump this demonstrably false "show me principle" that assumes you can't know anything except physical facts and move into that discussion?

Thus far, the method for distinguishing between 'non-physical evidence', emotional reaction, and wishful thinking is lacking.

You really have no idea as to which of these categories your sense of consciousness fits into?

While you're answering that, what about the basic truths of logic?

What about trans-finite mathematics? Do you reject those equations because there is no way to physically test them?



Okay, I hope my point is clear.
But, I've now reached the end of who knows how many posts, over how many years, I've now heard you expound on "the show me principle", and I feel compelled to point out that, for all your talk about what is practical, you haven't actually provided any evidence for it.

I'm sure its practical for many people to believe in God, that doesn't make it true. Its not that I don't understand that people are often wrong about what they say. I completely agree with that. But there needs to be something like an iota of evidence supporting this principle, or else its just one more thing that someone says.

The only difference is that it makes the mistake of rejecting obviously true things (experience is evidence) rather than accepting obviously false things. But that's not an improvement.

[Goat]

Yet, when I ask for a better method to determine if you are right, I get silence.

You want a better method than "this stance contradicts itself"?
So, if I were to tell you "This sentence is false.", you'd want a "better method" to determine if it was a true statement?

What about, "You've provided no evidence at all to support any claim about what evidence is acceptable."?
That's also true.

Evidence that is acceptable is evidence that can be independently verified. You see, I can do that with physical evidence. So far, no one has been able to show me a way to distinguish between 'non-physical' evidence, and the noosphere.

Can you? I noticed you, yet again, avoided that issue. If someone can come up with a way to distinguish 'non-physical evidence' from concepts/emotions, and independently verify it, I would be GLAD to look. Can you? Is there a way to show it desperate from a living creatures mental activity? With physical evidence, I can do that. It's not the physical evidence that is important.. It is the 'independently verify'.

Until that issue is done, and there is a way to distinguish between 'non-physical evidence' and concepts/emotion', the claims mean nothing to me. The physical, well, not only can it be independantly verified, but it can be tested and GET RESULTS. Is it perfect?? No.. because our testing , and concepts are not perfect. BUt can it get results?? Yes. Can it be used in a practical manner?? Yep. But, we can test to see if someone has weapons of mass destruction, although the cost might be too high. We have physical evidence of the higgs boson. .. even though it took decades of looking.

Can you do the same for the non-physical?

Until that can be done.. I can't distinguish between what is or might be real with your claim, and the purest fantasy. It might give you emotional/intellectual satifaction, but you can't SHOW that it's true.

Until a method can be developed for independent verification, and a way to distinguish the 'non-physical' from the noosphere, the claims for the non-physical evidence have not meaning for me.

It's not the physical, it is the independent verification.

[Jester]

Evidence that is acceptable is evidence that can be independently verified.

I've long-since lost count of the number of times I've seen this misused.

My issue has always been this:

Is there any reason, at all, to think that you can't independently verify the claim that consciousness exists?

Really, don't check your own behavior, don't run to the hospital to get your brain scanned, just ask yourself whether you can verify the claim that you are conscious without doing these things.

If so, there is verification that breaks your "show me principle".

You see, I can do that with physical evidence. So far, no one has been able to show me a way to distinguish between 'non-physical' evidence, and the noosphere.

So, are you rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as thought?

If you accept the noosphere, you accept the idea that you know of something that is not physical – and you know it with non-physical evidence.

That is, it means you agree with me that Scientism is wrong to say that the physical is the end-all be-all of evidence.

It seems that you're trying to jump to other (unnamed) non-physical entities, that I've not remotely defended. And are pointing out that it would be hard or impossible to verify many of them.

Well, yes, the search for truth is hard, and impossible in places. Welcome to reality; the same goes for the physical. We'll take this one step at a time, and get to those things.

But the point for now is that this ridiculous "show me principle" has been shown to be false. We really need to quit ranting about how you don't see another way to verify things, and start spending that energy on looking at the other ways I've already mentioned.

On that note:

Can you? I noticed you, yet again, avoided that issue.

So you skipped over all my talk about your ability to verify consciousness without the "show me principle".

You apparently also didn't read the part where I asked you for evidence for this, rather than just another speech about how you, personally, are ignorant of the other ways of knowing things. Verification through tests of logical consistency was being used here (and the "show me principle" failed abysmally).

And you definitely skipped the last section, where I pointed out that the "show me principle" is just something someone has claimed without evidence–that, in years of asking, I've never once had any one "show me" the slightest scrap of evidence that the "show me principle" is more than a part of the noosphere.

All its ever been "shown" to do is be a way to thoughtlessly reject things that can be independently verified–simply because they aren't physical.


Because, if you notice, these are all checks about ideas that don't use the "show me principle" they use your own experience and the principle of non-contradiction.

Hence, my claim "the show me principle" is just another form of Scientism that needs to be thrown out is independently verified – and without anything you'd call "public information".

If someone can come up with a way to distinguish 'non-physical evidence' from concepts/emotions, and independently verify it, I would be GLAD to look.

Have a look, then.
Do you think that your experience of consciousness is non-physical evidence of consciousness, or do you think its just an illusion?

Do you want one better than this?
How about the fact that you're wrong, factually incorrect, to say that consciousness is purely physical. That breaks down into self-contradictions, too.

That being the case, the non-physcial evidence of your experience of consciousness proves to you that there is more to reality than the physical.

Unless, of course, you reject the idea that things shouldn't be self-contradictory. That is, after all, a way to verify a claim without using some overly narrow Scientistic approach like the "show me principle".

So, do you agree that we can throw out ideas that contradict themselves? That would be an excellent form of verification right there (and one that doesn't have the slightest to do with demanding physical evidence).

It's not the physical evidence that is important.. It is the 'independently verify'.

Check against your own experience, then, or against logic.
Your experience is independent, whether or not it is physical.

If someone says "Consciousness exists.", you can independently verify that.
If someone says "No statement is true.", you can independently falsify that.

No need for physical evidence there.

Until that issue is done, and there is a way to distinguish between 'non-physical evidence' and concepts/emotion', the claims mean nothing to me.

There's quite a lot of demanding, here.

I really should add that your position isn't somehow right by default. If you're still hung on this self-contradictory idea that you can't verify things using your own experience and throwing out self-contradictory claims (like the "show me principle"), you need to offer something like a scrap of evidence for that.

Really, it's been years now. Continuing to proclaim your ignorance of the other methods I've already pointed out isn't going to work.

I don't think you realize that you're throwing out logic here. Logic is, quite obviously, a check that can be done without a physical test. It's non-physical, but a way that things can be independently verified.

To claim that physical tests are important is fine (very true indeed). To claim that they are the only way you can know things is simply announcing your own ignorance.

And, at this point in the conversation, it is fairly inexcusable ignorance. The other methods have been pointed out to you more than once.


So, use your own personal, non-physical experience and logic to verify the examples I've given you: There is such a thing as consciousness, self-contradictory statements aren't true, and ignorant demands that physical evidence is your only way to independently verify things are ridiculous.

Once you've done that, we can talk some more about what other non-physical things we might also independently verify. I haven't decided, but think I might start with free will.