just namedropping a bunch of concepts
...This is coming from the guy whose entire position rests upon abstruse probabilistic principles which, when analyzed with any degree of caution, prove themselves utterly pointless to the discussion at hand.
There is one level of reality,
In philosospeak, this can be translated as "There is one dominant perspective of truth." You've now staked a claim that the truth about reality can only be understood in one way; if that way turns out to be science, which it will, then you are indeed positing scientific knowledge as true at the expense of other forms of knowledge.
governed as far as we know by strings/quantum fields and fundamental forces of nature.
You and I both know that basing one's metaphysics on the theoretical physics of the day is going to make any argument look rather weak. Remember how primitive science was five hundred years ago? Now let's imagine how string theory will be imagined five thousand years from now. Quite embarrassing!
Instead, we should define the universe according to the method by which it is reached, i.e. science. This makes your account stronger because it doesn't pigeonhole it within the prejudices of modern theory.
We can TALK about something called chairs, people, thoughts, joys, emotions etc. but we have to remember that it all REDUCES down to our best knowledge of 'basement level reality'.
So what I was saying all along turns out to be correct: we can use other perspectives if we'd like, but only the scientific perspective is the correct one.
So again: what makes science true?
I'm guessing that you thought I was a philosophical reductionist instead or something.
No, no, this is the vanilla reductionism which I touched on earlier as being the most common philosophy today; the sweeping influence of New Atheism, the dogmatic devotion to scientists-as-priests, and all that jazz.
Now then, the "answer" to why you're a reductionist:
Because I once wasn't a reductionist and the universe was confusing and moved in seemingly random ways and now I am and so many things fall into place. It exorcises my feelings of confusion and also fit in with what I believed about the world from science before that. Note that now my justification for it has changed from that and I'll need to parse it out. But yeah. That's the CAUSAL chain which led to it. Now if you want something else you can try and specify.
So you're a reductionist because it "makes you feel good"? What part of having no value to your life helps things "fall into place"? Why put your faith in science? If it "makes you happy," then why not simply throw yourself into the world and enjoy your life? Why not be religious, marry a pretty religious girl, have a nice family, and live a normal life?
Your major claim for believing in science is complacency. Notice that there are no claims of "truth" here; presumably, if the scientific was utterly debunked tomorrow from a logical perspective, you'd still cling to it. That explains a lot about the direction this conversation has taken.
Recall all that you've said so far: you've demonstrated both contempt for logic and a shameless ignorance of philosophy generally, and your reductive philosophy specifically. I've enjoyed this conversation so far, but it's becoming more and more clear that truth isn't what you're after: it's the quasi-religious promulgation of a scientific dogma you embrace uncritically. I engaged this conversation to talk about philosophy and logic, not for a religious conversion.
You're free to prove me wrong, of course: just answer why science is true.
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9