Talk:Eliminative materialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This seems pejorative[edit]

Thinking qualia is a nonsensical, incoherent concept isn't particularly radical. Even as a thought experiment it stretches the bounds of reason more than a bit. The tone of "eliminative" materialism, sounds like it's evil people trying to destroy the concept rather than, you know, rejecting its validity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it sound pejorative, but it truly is called "eliminative" materialism. I created the page because RW has a page on reductionism, so I thought it'd be interesting to talk about "eliminativism" as well. I'm really interested in this idea, but the pages I found so far are too dense for me. Do you know something about it ikanreed? —Jagoe (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a lay interest in philosophy, not real expertise. And I really just meant that the term for the concept sounds pejorative, like it was invented by some kind of radical anti-materialist, not that your summary was hostile. I guess that's wrong of me, because eliminativism is apparently just the broader philosophical term for what we'd now call "being a scientific skeptic", where you apply occam's razor to phenomena, and reject unnecessary complications from hypothetical or conjectured sources absent evidence that the known physical phenomena can't explain.
the "objections" to it seem outright insane to me. It's not contradictory to believe in a concept of trueness, and simultaneously believe that that belief is itself derived from physical phenomena. I don't know how someone who deems themselves a philosopher could put those words to paper and not go "oh, that's how" 2 seconds later. The more I read about this, the more I believe this to be a really dumb debate to be having in philosophy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I also think that this article is a bit too harsh, altough I disapprove Eliminative Materialism (It is the proper name), the article lacks proper argumentation to be so opposed to it. Thus, it should be expanded in the future. Livelongerandprosper (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)