I Challenge You To a Debate

[Hakurei Reimu]

Okay, let's see what Cas has come up with now.

I present to the jury the following evidence:

That'll be a first.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. If it is true that we exist in an external objective observation independent Material Universe, then it logically follows that the existence of god is so unlikely and unnecessary that Atheism would be the most logical conclusion to arrive at as a rational human being.

But! If however it turns out that instead we actually exist in an observation-dependent Consciousness-based Virtual Reality, then it logically follows that the existence of god as described in my opening statement becomes so likely to exist and even necessary that Theism becomes the more logical conclusion to arrive at as a rational human being.

As pointed out many times before, you have spent all of your time disproving materialism/realism/what-the-fuckism and fuck-all time proving idealism. Your campaign is a cheerful march into the false dichotomy fallacy â€" pretending that by disproving a competing theory, your own theory is supported. Sorry, but you still need specific evidence in support of your own theory before it will get any sort of traction. You provide no such evidence.

The Evidence Against The Virtual Universe:

1) The Virtual Reality model is not currently a widely accepted model.

True.

2) The proposed tests to falsify the virtual reality hypothesis have not yet been performed.

True. It's even hard to figure out what sort of tests could be performed.

3) No scientist or experiment has conclusively declared that the Virtual Reality hypothesis is true.

True.

4) It is counter-intuitive.

True, but irrelevant. The universe is not required to be intuitive. This is most of your problem right here.

The Evidence Against Realism/Materialism:

1) After hundreds of years as the predominant model of reality it has failed to even begin to suggest an explanation for our most immediate and undeniable experience of the existence of consciousness.

Models which take consciousness to be a fundamental give up at the gate, and have not produced a satisfactory answer in thousands of years. Unfair much?

2) The Big Bang Theory within a Realist/Materialist framework suggests the miracle of an unexplained uncaused cause which can be categorized as no less than a mystical explanation of the origins of the universe. A time-zero event makes no since in an objective reality.

Get that Kalam shit out of here.

3) Why the speed of light should be a constant for all observers remains unexplained within a Realist/Materialist framework, as an objective reality has no reason for a maximum speed.

The theory of special relativity, another physical theory you do not understand, does a fine job of explaining how the speed of light is a constant for everyone in a realist, and materialist way. Special relativity is the brainchild of Albert Einstein, the same guy who was bent out of shape by QM's implications, remember?

Why it seems to be the case the the universe is relativistic we don't know, but it has far reaching consequences. Coupled with quantum mechanics it yields the Pauli Exclusion Principle in QFT, which gives us the solidity and chemistry of physical matter.

4) Non-Locality is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism as it violates the Principle of Locality.

Only in your own mind. Looking at the actual definition of materialism and realism, it's clear that non-locality is not forbidden by either. Furthermore, even the principle of locality is not really violated in the form you suppose. The principle of locality only applies to action and information, and it is quite arguable whether or not the "spooky action at a distance" derided by Einstein are actually actions at all.

5) Causally disconnected effects are completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism as they violate the Principle of Causality.

Again, only in your own mind. The funny statistical effects seen in quantum mechanics can hardly be called "actions."

6) Quantum Tunneling is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because a material object cannot pass through another material object in an objective reality.

You do know that what we call "matter" is mostly empty space filled by force fields, right? Even neutronium, the densest stuff known to science, is full of holes. That explains tunneling right there.

7) Superposition is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because a single global object cannot be in more than one position at one time in an objective reality.

Given that superpositions don't actually place material objects in any position at all in space at a particular time, this is not a concern.

8) Observation Dependence is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because an objective reality requires that objects exist independent of observation and are entirely unaffected by whether or not they are observed.

There is no such thing as an "observation" conforming to the criterion your realism requires. The reality condition is satisfied vacuously in all cases.

The Evidence in Favor of Realism/Materialism:

1) It is widely accepted by most working scientists and the majority of intelligent people on the planet. (Argumentum ad populum/Appeal to Authority/Appeal to Common Practice/Appeal to Tradition)

In short, by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to someone who clearly doesn't.

2) While Local Realism has been ruled out, there are still some Non-Local Theories that have yet to be tested, and no scientist or scientific paper exist that explicitly state that Realism or Materialism are false. (Appeal to Ignorance)

There are literally billions of experiments that uphold both realism and materialism. That's a heafty support, and it is not to be swept aside by a handful of experiments no matter what sort of science you practice.

3) If Materialism/Realism were false, our foundational understanding of science and reality since the birth of science will have been wrong. Nothing would make sense. (False Dilemma)

Again, literally billions of experiments uphold realism and materialism. And since science is about making sense of the world, "nothing making sense" is actually a very real concern.

4) Materialism has long been a useful and working model especially in conjuction with 19th century Newtonian Physics.

And since you have yet to come up with an entity besides the material that can be verified to exist by experiment, materialism still holds.

5) Our daily perceptions of reality seem consistent with an external objective observation-independent reality as described by Realism/Materialism. (Naive Realism)

It has already been explained to you why this stance is a strawman of real science.

The Evidence in Favor of the Virtual Universe:

1) The Big Bang is easily explained as all simulations must be “booted up,” therefore all virtual universes have a “Big Bang”.

Wrong. There is nothing about the virtual universe hypothesis that requires that the universe be booted up in a state that is consistent with a "Big Bang." It can just as easily be booted up in a state consistent with a "Steady State" universe.

2) The Speed of Light being a constant for every observer is easily explained as every simulation has a maximum refresh rate for observers.

Wrong. There is nothing preventing long-range influences in a simulation, and as such, infinite speeds in simulation. I've done it.

3) The Planck Limits are easily explained because a virtual reality must be digital in order to be calculable via information processing.

Wrong. The universe can easily be simulated using a long list of arbitrary precision numbers, and as such, there is no bottom limit to the granularity of the simulation, or even a way to predict where that bottom limit is.

4) Non-Locality is easily explained because a CPU can alter pixels anywhere on a screen in order to render images via set rules of observation built into the virtual reality.

Which directly contradicts #2.

5) Relativity is easily explained because time dilation and space curvature would be logical results of increased processing loads.

Your knowledge of computer science is just as poor as that for physics. Dealing with a small boost (velocity of a reference frame) is no more computationally expensive as a large one. Also, a processor lag would not be visible within the simulation itself, since it would take processor power to register that lag or if there is poor synching protocols in the simulation. Or if it's built to interact in real-time which is not evidenced either.

6) Violation of Causality is easily explained because a CPU can alter virtual unobserved pasts in order to render consistent images via set rules of observation built into the virtual reality.

Violations of causality would be invisible to the simulation, and as such, unevidenced.

7) Quantum Tunneling is easily explained because a program entity distributed across many “instances” can restart at any one and thus seem to “teleport”.
8) Quantum Superposition is easily explained because a program can easily instantiate a single virtual object twice.
9) Observation Dependence is easily explained because a virtual reality does not render images unless a present observer requires images to be rendered.

So, amongst the problems with this universe is clipping, memory leaks, and visual artifacts.

10) Consciousness is explained as the fundamental substance of reality, and information it's bi-product. Via information processing all that we experience as reality is produced.

That's not an explanation any more than saying the fundamental substance of reality is floo, and that reality we experience is produced through blast processing.

Yeah, fail.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The Miko Smackdown wins the day once again.

[SukmiLongHeart]

So I guess we (you) scared the ghost away? :(

Grts

[Shol'va]

I am wondering that myself. The expectation in the thread and via PM was set that he would provide his closing argument, followed by Mr Obvious. I am going to issue a deadline.

[SukmiLongHeart]

I am wondering that myself. The expectation in the thread and via PM was set that he would provide his closing argument, followed by Mr Obvious. I am going to issue a deadline.

Good idea...

And hah! 3 pages... Quite a ways away from "21".

Grts

[aitm]

I like when people are talking about quantum mechanics and it's quite evident that they can't solve a high school algebra problem...

<---- can't solve algebra problem...doesn't talk about quantum mechanics..

[Hakurei Reimu]

And at last we have come to Casparov's last gasp in his debate.

I have undoubtedly failed at proving the existence of God. In this sense, perhaps I should concede defeat.

Good. You at least have the presence of mind to know that.

Science as glorified by the successes of Galileo have held to this assertion about reality since it’s very inception.

Bullshit. You seem to think that science was invented by Galileo. What we now know as "science" (it wasn't even called 'science' until the 19th century) actually started some three thousand years ago by the Ionian Greeks. The Greeks and in particular the Greek natural philosophers were not materialists. They believed in all sorts of woo, and they didn't even have a scientific method as we know it today. Science was practiced in some form right up through the Dark Ages, percolating and being refined, until it reached its present form today.

Both Galileo and Isacc Newton were full-on theists. In particular, Newton believed that his solar system model would need to be periodically reset by God's finger because he couldn't (?) guarantee the long-term stability of the solar system. It took Pierre-Simon Laplace to carry the analysis to higher terms and figure out that the solar system is quite stable in the long term â€" but there was nothing about the mathematics Laplace used that was beyond Newton, only the will to not give up too early for an easy answer.

But it was Albert Einstein who’s Mathematics and Scientific Theories were so powerful that they seemed to surpass these foundational assumptions. Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics were the first scientifically and Mathematically sound theories of science that contradict our basic foundational assumptions about the nature of reality. These assumptions are so deeply engrained as unquestionable truths that Einstein renounced the Quantum Mechanics he helped to create in favor of Materialism and Realism.

Bullshit. I've already gone at length why QM and SR are materialist, realist theories (though not classically realist in the case of QM). If you actually read Einstein's thoughts on the matter, his principle objection to quantum mechanics was it's indeterminism, not any supposed lack of materialism or lack of realism. And you would disparage the works of Copernicus (heliocentric theory), Charles Darwin (theory of evolution), and Isacc Newton himself (universal gravitation). Each of these people made discoveries that were ground-shaking changes in our thought, and statements otherwise can only be made in ignorance of the history of science.

We have now had nearly One Hundred Years worth of trying to reconcile science with the assumptions of Materialism and Realism.

...Even though the experiments you cite as proof were only carried out thirty years ago, and even today still aren't convincing proof against materialism and realism to many practicing scientists.

The theories being proposed to rescue these basic assumptions are even sillier than the theories that were once proposed to rescue Flat Earth Theory, and The Geocentric Universe Model of Reality.

Yes, because a scientific ignoramus like you is going to tell us how sensible these theories are.

Science worked so well with Materialism up until the 19th Century that it has become unquestionably true in the minds of most working scientists.

And still works even with quantum wierdness, as we have explained at length on many occasions. No matter how you cut it, this does not sound to me like a paradigm that is in any danger of going away soon.

To consider any other alternative besides Realism and Materialism is considered blasphemy against science itself. Any alternate model of reality that abandons the assumptions of Realism and Materialism, is instantaneously labeled as “woo woo” and dismissed out of hand without further consideration.

To be perfectly honest: All of this reeks of Dogmatism.

Yes, it's not like theories involving "woo" don't have a bad track record or anything... oh, wait!

I am simply someone who, upon examining the current theories of our modern science, and upon examining the problems that they are attempts to solve, became skeptical of the assumptions of Materialism and Realism. Materialism and Realism are unprovable assertions about reality, more accurately described as opinions, rather than evidence based conclusions.

It is the body of evidence that proves scientific principles, not singular proofs standing out on their own. The continued failure of non-materialist and non-realist theories to rack up any sort of resume of explanitory success is damning. We find no trace of non-material substances or their action anywhere, exactly as materialism predicts. Even you admit that the universe is real and doesn't simply vanish without a trace when you stop looking at it, exactly as realism predicts. Like it or not, these do constitute evidences for materialism and realism.

Your statements that you have not been presented proof of such is patently false. You are simply someone who is uneducated and thinks that Google is a substitute for scientific competency, and as such your rejection of materialism and realism is just about as signficiant as a creationist's rejection of evolution.

He stated several times that he did not claim that these assumptions were definitely not false. A very smart move indeed.

Yes, keeping to the subject of the debate is very, very smart. Too bad you couldn't do the same.

Being skeptical and unconvinced that Materialism is a valid assumption, I have found an alternative in Idealism.

Except it's not really idealism, is it, Mr. Of-Course-Reality-Is-Real?

I do not know for sure that the outside world is not an illusion, but I do know for sure that my consciousness is real.

Your inability to doubt your own consciousness and your ability to doubt the existence of the external world is neither here nor there. It's simply a personal restatement of the Anthropic Principle, and like the Anthropic Principle has the weak, strong, and completely ridiculous forms. Guess which form you subscribe to.

Philosophically, Idealism is more consistent.

Only because it doesn't even try to solve the puzzle of consciousness and instead glosses over it. No risk, no reward.

Beyond the Philosophical Consistency though, I also find Idealism to be consistent with the findings of modern science.

Only in your internet-scholar mind, Professor Wogglebug.

The VR Model of reality sufficiently addressed this main concern of his as he eventually came to admit that this model is indeed a “worthwhile” model of reality.

At best, your "virtual reality" model only replicates what standard physics already states without adding anything to our understanding. It makes no new predictions that may be used to discriminate between a real universe and a virtual reality universe. That's what "predictive models" means â€" the model makes assertions about reality different from alternatives and as such can be used to test the model. Retreading old ground does not advance science no matter how neat you think the model you propose is.

In the end his only reason for rejecting the VR Model is that it is “not yet falsifiable.” This is half true. The Method of Falsification he was referring to is not yet doable, but as Brain Whitworth stated:

"If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics. If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, which supports the objective reality hypothesis. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable."

The more I hear about Brian Whitworth, the more skeptical I am that he knows what he's talking about in this area. He seems to think that a "computable number" is one that takes a finite amount of time to compute exactly. It does not. It means that if you give a Turing machine a tape with a specification of which digit to terminate on, the Turing machine will terminate in some finite time on that digit. That does not mean that there is an upper bound to calculation time of this computable number for any digit, nor does it mean that any exact calculation involving a computable number will involve a calculation time that is bounded above. Indeed, most physics equations involve a transcendental number somewhere, which by definition cannot be handled digitally in finite time or finite space.

I ran out of time to address this contention, but rest assured it is definitely contestable. Donald Hoffman, a Neurologist and Cognitive Scientist has produced a beautiful theory of consciousness within an Idealist paradigm which is indeed falsifiable.

Casparov thinks that Donald D. Hoffman's paper supports idealism. Meanwhile, in the real world, we find that this is yet another example of how Casparov reads into what he reads what he wants the papers to say. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Hoffman is talking about how the perceptions of a creature are often not true to the reality of what is being percieved â€" which is an admission that there is an objective reality that the perceptions are different from. This paper is not an endorsement for idealism â€" quite the opposite. His talk about how our perceptions are adapted for our survival presupposes a real environment to adapt to, for our survival is dependent upon adapting properly to that environment.

Indeed, Atheists whose Anti-Theistic Position is Materialism and Realism, truly have an unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion.

And out here in the real world, our "unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion" continues to earn its keep with every comprehensive theory that eschews the non-material and the unreality of the universe, and in fact constitutes its greatest evidence for its favor. Meanwhile, you have nothing in favor of idealism.

Again, your statement that there is no empircal evidence to uphold materialism or realism does not make it true. There's plenty. You simply fail to acknowledge it. According to OUR standards of proof, the scientific standard of proof, we have plenty of it.

The scientific standard of proof should be decided by practicing scientists, not internet-scholars like you, Professor Wogglebug.

It is an informed decision made when taking into account the evidence both philosophical and scientific.

"Philosophical evidence?"

But I agree with Brian Whitworth who says:

Something idiotic. Again, the fact that you do not understand what has been explained to you at length is not an indictment on materialism or realism. It is only an indictment on your own knowledge, Professor Wogglebug.

I may not have been able to convince Mr. Obvious, and I may not have been able to convince a single one of the people who will read this. All I can say is that for me personally, it seems wiser to let go of the common assumptions of Realism and Materialism in light of the mounting evidence that contradicts them, and to instead embrace a paradigm shift in our understanding of reality.

-snip-

You sound like VenomFangX with this statement, where the realm of your imaginary, unproved imagination is larger than the reality that actually demonstrated to exist. I think the world of exploding galaxies, of the intricate dance of chemicals, the dance of nature and the evolution of life are plenty fulfilling in and of themselves without having to imagine a world of fairy tales. Yes, imagining worlds like that is fun on occasion, but best done in moderation and to not conflate it with reality.

I think that you don't find the real world enough to fulfill you is because you are a scientific ignoramus, and have to fill the hole in your mind with fantasy. You can't stand the fact that consciousness is a product of your brain because you think of your brain as a banal thing made of "mere matter." But that matter you're made of is anything but "mere." You are literally made out of the dust of an exploded star. The fish in the sea literally are your very distant cousins. Mortality â€"the fact that we have limited time on this earth before we go back to the stardust we are madeâ€" is what gives life meaning, urgency and purpose. And we have a revulsion of depriving others of that great, literally-once-in-a-lifetime gift that gives us morallity.

Your view has it that whatever you could accomplish could easily be done by someone or something else, all being one and such, and as such your individual life amounts to nothing. You can kill with impunity, because there's no wrong in harming oneself. Further, you can rape the Earth with impunity because it's all just God's game.

(snip quote mining bullshit)

Reality rewards knowledge, not willful ignorance.

This is ironic because we stand against your view because reality rewards knowledge, and not willful ignorance, as you said. Your entire argument is one from ignorance. It boils down to, "I don't understand how the 'observer effect' works, therefore the world must be made of consciousness and only consciousness." Instead of learning about what is actually known about quantum theory, you go on and invent stuff you know nothing about, and hunt for quotes from "famous people" that apparently support your view. Some drink at the fountain of knowledge; you obviously gargle.

Just because religion is bad and glorifies ignorance, does not mean that no God exists.

We think that no God exists because of a complete lack of evidence for God. Simple as that, and not because we just want to be contrary to religions.

Mr. Obvious, is there any evidence that the assertion of Materialism is true? Can one prove Philosophical Realism? Can it be said to be anything more than an opinion or a preferred belief? Or is there definitive proof for such an assertion?

You've already been given as definitive proof as available to us: the entire body of scientific knowledge, with non-materialist and non-realist based theories curiously absent. The reason you reject it is because you have a different (and wrong) understanding of what scientific evidence means, just like creationists reject transitional forms when found.

The evidence is it’s superior capability as an explanation of the data and it’s consistency with philosophical and scientific evidence. But alas, there is no definite slam dunk proof.

Your myoptic fixation on "slam dunk proof" is one of the big reasons why nobody takes you seriously. We don't demand slam-dunk proof. We want an analysis of why the idealistic view makes more sense than materialist and realist views, but you've failed to provide this â€" quantum mechanics doesn't make any more sense with your idealism than it does with materialism or realism. The equations remain stubbornly the same.

You've offered nothing but rose colored glasses, which while may be comforting, offer no real answers. Your All-God spectacularly fails to explain why there are seven billion people on this planet with conflicting goals and personalities who can't fully understand each other even when they speak the same goddamn language, instead of one universal consciousness/hive mind. Your All-God spectacularly fails to explain why your "universal morality" fails to prevent sociopaths â€"people who completely lack morality as we know it. It explains quantum mechanics with a scientifically unsatisfying, "God wants it to be this way." Your explanation covers all the bases â€"reality can literally look like anything God wants it to look likeâ€" and as such fails to be an explanation as understood by science. Scientific explanations are as much exclusionary as they are inclusionary, and stating what will not be seen is as important to a scientific explanation as stating what can.

In the end, the conclusion can only be a personal one. Neither can be proven definitively so one must decide a way to conclude for one’s self.

So in the end, instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and conceeding that you have lost on all fronts, you throw up your hands and say there can be no definitive answer, even though you argued with all of your heart before this point to prove your worldview. This, to me, speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. If it is a personal choice and neither can be proven definitively, why bother with this debate at all? Why bother with presenting your proof with grand pronouncements of "REALISM IS A DEAD MAN WALKING," instead of admitting that it depends on your viewpoint and ask to consider the utility of those viewpoints as you have done here in your closing statement?

It's because you've lost, badly, and don't want to admit to the fact, and lost dispite you stamping your little feet with your grand pronoucements of the death of realism. You are now reduced to taking your ball and going home, blowing a raspberry all the way.

Go home, Professor Wogglebug.

[Shol'va]

I have undoubtedly failed at proving the existence of God. In this sense, perhaps I should concede defeat.

Personally, for me, this statement is very important and has some considerable redeeming value. Inception, anyone? :)

[Casparov]

Casparov thinks that Donald D. Hoffman's paper supports idealism. Meanwhile, in the real world, we find that this is yet another example of how Casparov reads into what he reads what he wants the papers to say. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Hoffman is talking about how the perceptions of a creature are often not true to the reality of what is being percieved â€" which is an admission that there is an objective reality that the perceptions are different from. This paper is not an endorsement for idealism â€" quite the opposite. His talk about how our perceptions are adapted for our survival presupposes a real environment to adapt to, for our survival is dependent upon adapting properly to that environment.
And out here in the real world, our "unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion" continues to earn its keep with every comprehensive theory that eschews the non-material and the unreality of the universe, and in fact constitutes its greatest evidence for its favor. Meanwhile, you have nothing in favor of idealism.

This makes me giggle. 

Tell the truth, you only read one paragraph. Be honest. You obviously did not watch his lecture I provided along with the paper titled, "Physics From Consciousness," : http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/%7Eddhoff/PFCTalk.mov

You obviously never got to the paragraph where he places the theory in the philosophical landscape:

It is not na ̈ıve realism, which claims that we directly see middle-sized objects; nor is it indirect realism, or representationalism, which says that we see sensory representations, or sense data, of real middle-sized objects, and do not directly see the objects themselves. It claims instead that the physicalist ontology underlying both na ̈ıve realism and indirect realism is almost surely false: A rock is an interface icon, not a constituent of objective reality. Although the interface theory is compatible with idealism, it is not idealism, because it proposes no specific model of objective reality, but leaves the nature of objective reality as an open scientific problem.

The Theory itself is not a direct argument for Idealism itself, yet it is a theory which works within an Idealist Framework and claims that Realism is almost surely false. I offered this source not as proof of Idealism itself, but as an explanation of the origins and nature of consciousness within an Idealist Framework that is both testable and falsifiable, addressing the point that Mr. Obvious brought up.

I find it ironic how you read one paragraph and then accuse me of "reading in" to what the paper is about. Watch the lecture and you will quickly find out that you are the one who was "reading in" to what Hoffman is arguing for. An excellent example of intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Go home, Professor Wogglebug. I read the entire paper, and it does not say what you want it to say. It was simply clear from the first paragraph what the paper was going to be about, and reading the entire paper did not change that. When he says the rock is an interface icon, he does not mean that there is not an object that corresponds to it. It's simply presenting the reality to the creature in a way that it can respond in a practical way to it. This would not make sense if there was no reality to respond to. You cannot avoid this paradox.

Realism is the general idea that the real world is out there, existing, and needs to be dealt with. The qualified forms of realism are simply attempts to capture this principle formally.

I didn't watch the lecture, though.

[josephpalazzo]

Casparov, if you're still around, here's a video that would clear a few of your misconceptions on naturalism and realism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSSG76R5sM#t=93

[Casparov]

Casparov, if you're still around, here's a video that would clear a few of your misconceptions on naturalism and realism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSSG76R5sM#t=93

This man argues against Dualism, which I do not hold to, and his argument for Materialism is An Appeal To Authority and Widespread Belief sprinkled with an "I can go into the specifics but I don't want to," which of course is not at all a convincing argument.

If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

[josephpalazzo]

This man argues against Dualism, which I do not hold to, and his argument for Materialism is An Appeal To Authority and Widespread Belief sprinkled with an "I can go into the specifics but I don't want to," which of course is not at all a convincing argument.

If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

It's a strange way to look at a body of overwhelming evidence accumulated over 500 years as "An Appeal To Authority"?!!?!

[Casparov]

It's a strange way to look at a body of overwhelming evidence accumulated over 500 years as "An Appeal To Authority"?!!?!

For 500 years materialism has been used as an underlying assumption in science. It is not a conclusion arrived at as the result of any evidence or experiment. To point to the fact that scientists today and in the past have held to an assumption is not evidence of anything, it is indeed only an Appeal to Authority and Widespread Belief.

Science was done under the assumption of a Flat Earth for nearly 1000 years. If someone argued in the year 500, "Flat Earth theory is true because the entire body of scientific evidence to date has been done under the assumption that the Earth is Flat." Would you accept that as evidence? I wouldn't. I would point out that the Earth being flat is only an assumption, and just because it is an assumption widely held by virtually all working scientists now and for the past 100's of years is not proof that it is true. I would ask for actual evidence that the earth is flat and point out that there are only fallacious arguments from authority and widespread belief used to preserve it as deeply held belief, a preconception and foundational assumption. It is just a preferred opinion being asserted as truth. The very definition of Dogmatism.

That science has preferred a particular assumption for a long time and lots of scientists prefer it... IS NOT EVIDENCE.

[Icarus]

If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

Didn't you just have a debate that focused on materialism/realism? How are you going to prove either to be true or false without using quantitative data?