Materialist World

Well, tit for tat, I guess, but whatever. I don't actually own any of those concepts, of which only evolution is considered an actual "theory" from a scientific aspect.

Well, I'd be careful about how you use these terms. 'Evolution' isn't a theory, it's a fact. Evolution, that is the observed variance of genotypical frequency within a given population over time, happens and we've seen it happen. The theory of natural selection attempts to explain how this occurs. These are both biology things.

Furthermore, there's a historical theory of common descent that attempts to explain the modern observed fact of great biodiversity. This one, a lot like other historical theories, isn't quite as scientific as the theory of natural selection or the theory of punctuated equilibrium because we're trying to explain something that already happened a long time ago. You can't exactly run the Earth's bio-sphere once through again to test your theory.
 

mowque

Banned
This one, a lot like other historical theories, isn't quite as scientific as the theory of natural selection or the theory of punctuated equilibrium because we're trying to explain something that already happened a long time ago. You can't exactly run the Earth's bio-sphere once through again to test your theory.

To clarify that last point. Do you argue tectonic plate movement or stellar evolution? Same problem with them..you can't do it again in a lab.
 
To clarify that last point. Do you argue tectonic plate movement or stellar evolution? Same problem with them..you can't do it again in a lab.

No, I'm just pointing out that you won't be so successful with historical theories as you will with physical ones. Someday I'll write a dissertation about the differences between the physical scientific method and the archeologist's method.
 

mowque

Banned
No, I'm just pointing out that you won't be so successful with historical theories as you will with physical ones. Someday I'll write a dissertation about the differences between the physical scientific method and the archeologist's method.

Sorry. I typed that poorly. I meant to re-enforce your point, not ask questions. :p I suck at this internet thing.
 
Sorry I took so long, my mom dragged me to a play she was in :p
Those articles have definitely piqued my interest. I'm going to do some additional reading up on it, sleep on it, and should be able to reply tomorrow. Might not be able to before leaving on my road trip.

And to answer DJC's question on my own theories: None. I just like arguing :D. I'm a little busy focusing on now to worry about before. The reason I dislike all these theories is for the exact reason Jaded stated: It cannot be reproduced in the lab. That was basically my whole point. I to am weary of this conversation, so I might forgo posting on it tomorrow.
 
For anyone wishing to examine the issue let me suggest article. Bloom's 2005 essay in The Atlantic is thought provoking and should provide a nice primer on the subject to those interested.

Thanks for the link.

I like how it takes a lot of wind out of the whole "religions are inherently moral/purposeful" argument. Religion, at its core being more incidental rather than being contrived to serve a purpose -- that in itself is a very interesting concept.

Yeah. In light of that article, a pre-modern materialist philosophy that has any sort of mass appeal seems real hard. Although we can have enlightenment style rationalism appear sooner and in more cultures-- making materialism an accepted but not the majority view.
 
Thanks for the link.


Elidor,

You're welcome.

Even common trolls are occasionally helpful.

Religion, at its core being more incidental rather than being contrived to serve a purpose -- that in itself is a very interesting concept.

I found it very interesting too but, as nothing but a common troll, my interest in the article is of no interest to anyone at all.

Yeah. In light of that article, a pre-modern materialist philosophy that has any sort of mass appeal seems real hard. Although we can have enlightenment style rationalism appear sooner and in more cultures-- making materialism an accepted but not the majority view.

Agreed. It seems that the development of a widespread materialist philosophy in pre-modern societies would require Homo sapiens to think differently on a physical level.

Mind you, that's just the conjecture of a common troll.


Bill
 
Last edited:
back OT

Todays Materialist Society is due to the Moneytarization of Society.
With everything from Love, Honor, Loyalty, to Chasity, and Self Respect, for sale for the right price, there is no place for Spiritualism.

So to get a earlier Materialist World, simply find a way to Moneytarize the society sooner.
 
Reading earlier posts I wonder to what extent materialism would lead to the sorts of secularism or science that people think. Lots of modern secularism is a direct reaction and critique of religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones. The early POD you need to make this work will prevent all of this. Without organized religion to critique and serve as a warning of what not to do why should materialism lead to the sort of secular world being posited?
 
Top