Comment by Sapere_Aude

4 years ago

I love material reductionism. It pretends to explain the thing it actually renders meaningless with its "explanation".

This "explanation" is utter rubbish mumbled by the philsophically inept. It even pretends to be "science" all the while bringing in their "darwinian" "evolutionary" philosophy. (One thing I wonder often is, don't these people know fallacies, e.g. when trying to prove sth. to be caused by evolution, as a proof for evolution, while assuming evolution to be true in the first place? Classic "begging the question"-fallacy.)

You don't seem to bring forth any real rebuttal of the arguments in the article. I personally think it's a bit oversimplified but very much viable. Why don't you think so?