[fiatjaf]

It's strange how materialists of all sorts (just look at the comments) take it for granted that, no matter how scientifically absurd, these facts cannot be used as evidence for non-materialistic explanations of the life and the world. Everything will be explained by materialistic science, and that is settled.

[lutusp]

Okay, but consider the alternative -- that the existence of a non-materialistic reality is assumed without empirical (i.e. material) evidence. If that were to be accepted as a given, then we might build a pseudoscience on that foundation, one that would burden everyone with assumptions about empirically untestable, non-objective properties of reality. We would have created psychology.

[acornax]

Empirical evidence isn't material evidence.

[lutusp]

That's exactly what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Quote: "Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría)."

The definition goes on to contrast empirical evidence with reasoning and other ways of approaching analysis -- all the non-materialist approaches.

[acornax]

Read the quote again, you're begging the question.

Empirical evidence is experiential by definition - it can be material evidence if it relates to claims about matter, but it can also be evidence about other domains.

Ex. If God exists, then religious experience is empirical evidence of this. It is not probably not material evidence however.

[lutusp]

> Read the quote again, you're begging the question.

Yes, perhaps I am to some extent.

> Empirical evidence is experiential by definition

I would have said it relies on tangible evidence, material evidence. Its status as an experience by an observer, if present, is secondary. I say this because evidence can be gathered without anyone experiencing it directly. Consider Curiosity on Mars. If we read a mass spectrometer's results radioed back to Earth and draw conclusions on that basis, it's a stretch to assert that we've experienced the evidence. Its interpretation certainly involves an observer, but not the evidence gathering itself -- that is often automated, even here on earth.

> Ex. If God exists, then religious experience is empirical evidence of this.

No, I think a spiritual experience contradicts the direct, physical sense of empirical. I usually regard empirical evidence as that kind of physical evidence that forces different, similarly equipped observers into agreement on its meaning.

Example -- when the CMB was confirmed in the mid-1960s, it killed off the last hope for a steady-state universe. Until then the Big Bang's critics were theorizing that the universe created new matter between the galaxies, so even though the universe was clearly expanding, this didn't mean it had a beginning or an end. The CMB detection, which wasn't really anyone's direct experience, falsified this alternative to the Big Bang. And it's objective in the sense that anyone can set up and detect the same evidence using indirect means -- not by direct experience.

[joeclark77]

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual experience" but I think the previous comment about "religous experience" was referring to tangible, observable phenomena, like a man rising from the dead. This is empirical evidence (i.e. based on experience) but may not necessarily be measured in SI units. Data like this may lead to defensible logical conclusions that (because they are immaterial) cannot be tested experimentally.

[Natsu]

Where would that leave something like free will?

I think most people will agree with me that we have the sensation of control over our own actions and yet it's not something that's directly testable per se.

[muyuu]

If what you mean by materialistic is non-supernatural (or just natural) then that much is quite settled, yes.

[tim333]

I don't see any of "these facts" as "scientifically absurd." Which are absurd in your opinion?

[Dylan16807]

Science describes the world as it is, no matter how strange, whether or not it's 'materialistic'.

[fiatjaf]

Science describes the material portion of the world, and ignores the rest, or says: "the rest will be discovered as having a material foundation in the future and by that time we will describe it, we will not bother to describe it now".

This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is".

[Dylan16807]

That assumption does not exist. Science will measure and model things without material foundation just as readily. Unless 'material' means 'able to be measured'. Science doesn't really putt around with things you can't measure.

[lutusp]

> Science describes the material portion of the world, and ignores the rest ...

Let's say that science doesn't try to analyze those parts of the world not accessible to empirical observation. That could be described as modesty or reticence.

> This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is".

Those who do try to describe the non-material world have a pretty terrible record for reliable results.

[splawn]

"ignores the rest"

by "rest", I assume you are a scientologist talking about theatans.

"This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is"."

I disagree, my favorite thing about the scientific method is that it does its best to drop assumptions. I am not a scientist, but resort to this kind of thinking when I have to debug code. Suggest a better way and I will try it out.