Talk:Materialism

Is this saying the same thing as our Methodological naturalism article? but with less words.--Bob^{bing up} 17:07, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

The article says that the difference between the two is small, but doesn't clarify what that difference actually is. I don't understand it, either; I thought they were synonyms. Can someone provide an example of something which is part of naturalism but not part of materialism? Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Status of space and time in materialism?

What is the ontological status of time & space in materialism? Your article does not make that clear, hence readers may think that time & space are reducible to matter? 114.30.125.178 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Yendo

Historical materialism

May I please add a paragraph explaining it? Pan (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Marx

Is it prudent to differentiate this form of Materialism from Dialectical Materialism, the contrast offered by Karl Marx to the Hegalian Dialectic? ^{— Unsigned, by: CorpMinicrits / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

And that goes for your own user talk page too. Thank you again. Spud (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. CorpMinicrits (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Circular reasoning in this article?

"science is inherently materialistic and the available scientific evidence proves materialism beyond any reasonable doubt" Wait, what? Could the reason that available scientific evidence proves materialism beyond a reasonable doubt is because science is inherently materialistic? So using science to prove materialism is like using materialism to prove itself. And that is circular reasoning. 138.43.105.135 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Where in the article is that said? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In the second to last paragraph of the main section of the article 149.19.33.81 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Science isn't used to like "prove" materialism but it requires a materialistic framework to work. It's already stated in the article, "Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist" so the overall passage isn't needed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's kind of hard to "prove" any existential philosophy. I think the question we should be asking is if a given philosophy has utility in any given area. Vee (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)