Scientific Materialism

[helz_belz]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but there was an interesting article on the BBC News Magazine Ghosts in the Material World

It makes some good points about Scientific Materialism, the theory that only the physical world exists. But, as the article says, many aspects of Quantum Physics and String Theory include aspects of, for lack of a better term, 'weirdness' that cannot be explained adequately with current 4-dimensional space-time. I have a scientific background and training, so I fully understand why so many scientists take a materialist viewpoint, for so many sciences anything beyond the material isn't that useful (for my field, Geology, we get by quite well with just the usual 4-dimensions ). But for other areas, like quantum physics and String Theory (which seems to be hoarding dimensions - it has 11OMG) etc, thinking outside the material 'box' is a normal everyday occurrance.

The comments after the article are particularly thoughtful.

 

[argonne1918]

Do you know who Rupert Sheldrake is? He is a heretic British scientist. There are many YouTube videos about him. Here is one about his experiments about dog telepathy.

 

[Nightrain]

The battle between Science and Mysticism, in my opinion, can often be boiled down to a battle between what is seen and what is unseen. The word "Science" in many respects is so often misconstrued and in need of more exact definition before it can be bandied about in arguments as to whether the unseen or the unknown is real.


To some experts the practice of science involves a strict application of empirical method which involves a hundred or more experiments and observations to establish a firm theory. But, even then, all one has is theory and not fact. If we apply this concept to the question of whether the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars all rotate around the Earth, we would have to say that such an observation should be an unquestioned theory if not a proven fact. Yet, we now know beyond question that the opposite is true. We must question, therefore, what Scientific method brought us to this conclusion.


Very few scientists have ever closely examined the work of Copernicus to find out how he managed to turn what was long considered heresy into accepted fact; but yet, they are firm in their belief that the apparent rotation of celestial bodies is an illusion. Would it be such a stretch today, to suggest that the material world is also an illusion?


During the past hundred years scientists have conducted double slit experiments which would seem to suggest that atomic particles seem to know when they are being observed. They have also observed that such particles can be in two places at one time. Surely these discoveries are truly weird.


So, would it be any more weird for science to accept that there are things beyond the apparent material world that we have not yet experienced? If critical observation is the basis of what we call Science, what should we make of the countless observations documented by credible people around the world of non-material or even material phenomenon? And, what of the truly empirical and repeated experiments which indicate the existence of telepathy and precognition?


I would venture to say that we are presently at a cognitive threshold similar to that of the 16th Century, in which the established "Church" of science must give way to a new diametric. All that we heretofore considered solid and real is but an illusion. There is more to our world than can be seen or imagined.

 

[Ghost of Gumby]

I think that it is important to not become bound by materialism, because the whole picture is probably much more complex. The material universe is, I think, is only the tip of the iceberg. So there are a lot of discoveries which remian for the scientific inquiry. Materialism is not sufficient, in my opinion, to explain the complexities of existence. Here is a good read on the topic http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang