| Right, or.. Ok, uh, I don’t think one has to really reject empiricism to reject scientific materialism? Or, err, by “empiricism” do you mean like, “support for doing experiments, and keeping track of the results and what models work good to explain them, etc.”, or do you mean stuff like “rejecting anything that doesn’t have good scientific evidence behind it”? One can do the former without doing the latter. When I express a belief I have that doesn’t fit with scientific materialism, I make sure to mark it as such, so that people can take that into account. I don’t anticipate any clear externally-verifiable refutation of scientific materialism within my lifetime, and so I don’t anticipate predictions that follow from it to be refuted anytime soon. And I definitely wouldn’t present those beliefs of mine as being the scientific consensus. I suppose one might accuse me of having a “belief in belief”, seeing as I don’t expect these supposed “beliefs” of mine to be predictively useful any time soon. But I think it is right that there are goals/values that I place higher than pure predictive accuracy. And beliefs about purpose, and meaning, and what is good, etc. fall into that. (You mentioned utilitarianism. I’m not a utilitarian, but I do think it is often a very good heuristic, and in many contexts it would be good for it to be used more.) |
Honestly, I added "keep your models as simple as you can" into it. But any way you cut empiricism, it's actually utilitarianism that can be seen, so it's the one where the correct fine-cutting is important (hum... well, if you keep an utilitarian point of view). Anyway, utilitarianism tends to align with the version of empiricism biased into getting computable models.
And, of course, none of those deal with purpose questions.
Anyway, your comment there is great. What I disagree is on conceding space to something like the one above yours, because it's a misleading text that implies something very different from what it says.