" All of the physical sciences have been based on the concept of materialism for centuries,"

You certainly have an interesting take on the history of science, daylia...the whole notion of "based on" is not really applicable. If all you mean is that Science takes as its subject matter the material world and goes about seeing what can be discovered about it, you might be right...but this would be trivial as a criticism, if you mean it as a criticism. Why would this be a problem? It is just a description of what it is supposed to do?

Then you add "From materialism arose reductionism and nihilism, (among other "modern" scientific beliefs, fallacies and falsehoods)."

...and to take apart THAT batch of mis-matched ideas would take awhile. "Arose"? How? Who? As I said, reductionism and nihilism are almost NEVER used as descriptions of belief systems except by critics who want to plaster someone with a negative sounding label. And to top it off, with a few grammatical jumps, you link an already ambiguous claim with the presupposition that modern science *IS* full of "beliefs, fallacies and falsehoods".

1)belief is not properly applied to scientific theories.
2)fallacies applies to logic and reasoning, not to questions of fact.
3) Falsehood 'implies' knowingly stating untruths...and while a few scientists have been known to do such things for personal gain, the usual term for disputing facts is "inaccuracies"...simply theories that didn't work out...etc.


" the attitudes and technologies spawned from a highly materialistic, nihilistic scientific approach continue pose an ever-growing threat to this planet and every living thing on it."

well...yeah, some aspects of technology have obviously been misused and misunderstood. Which ones are you suggesting we give up? Would NONmaterialistic research have given us these computers so we could argue about it? We need to be reasonable about our scientific forays, but that is hardly a critique of scientific endeavor in general.....unless you wish to claim affinity with the Luddities.

""teachers" .... who promote this type of narrow, simplistic, fallacious thinking -...... you've certainly been one of them Bill! "

*shaking my head*....I hardly know what to say to that. It is, patently, false. I have been accused of being wrong at times...(I may even have actually BEEN wrong once or twice....no, I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken..☺)...but I have never, ever had it suggested that I promoted narrow, simplistic, fallacious thinking~! I spend all these hours here trying to combat such things! If I wounded a few sacred cows trying, I consider it a partial success..*wry smile*
Still, as often is the case, I think the thrust of the accusation comes from hurried and inaccurate use of terminology. Perhaps you don't 'really' think I promote bad thinking, but are merely deluded...a much easier hat for me to wear.


"Your opinions as expressed on threads like these are indeed based on materialism, empiricism, reductionism, even a dash of nihilism"

again..."based" is not accurate or relevant..my opinions are developed from looking at stuff I have read, studied, learned and re-thought for 40+ years. You seem to imply that I consult 'manuals of reductionism' (if there is such a thing) etc., before I post here. Lordy, it sounds like old Joe McCarthy suggetsing that everyone who disagrees with him is based in communism!

I have been told I am beating my head against a wall trying to discuss this issue here...*grin*

but it feel so GOOD when I stop!