What has long amazed me is how reluctant the materialist meme is to let go of its grip on science even though it could be well-argued that it lost the philosophical battle a century ago. I mean, just look at all the young 'upstart' materialists in the philosophical ranks who act as if their metaphysic wasn't rendered obsolete when the LAST revolution in fundamental physics occurred! I guess they still hope that materialist reaction at the turn of the last century against a view of reality in which everything manifest manifests via an intervening medium [aether] will eventually come up with something better than intrinsic uncertainty and mere probability. As if the 'new' science was unable to escape the 'old' science's necessary requirement for "wiggle room" that leaves way too much leeway for transcendency to operate. That's the reason even the quantum vanguard fought evidence of the Big Bang for nearly 40 years tooth and nail while they labored to erect their theoretical edifice. Too much aid and comfort to the "enemy."

I've always held the opinion that what's 'real' is 'real' regardless of what scientists and philosophers say about it. And what's 'real' inevitably boils down to what human beings experience AS 'real' - a phenomenological question entirely. Experience of reality is different from beliefs about reality. This is made glaringly obvious by how the leftover materialist meme manages to overcome all evidence against it by sheer force of "belief-in." That this "belief-in" likes to call itself 'Science' is either laughable or pitiful depending on how seriously one cares to consider the difference between experience and beliefs about experience.

I'll try to work up a blog about another of Chalmers' observations as I have time. That one deals specifically with phenomenology and beliefs. Thanks again!

One factor that may contribute to the lack of any uproar is that no one is trying to get a dualist perspective taught in the public school rooms. Without the socio-political movement focused on the public school classroom, I'm not sure there would be as much heat surrounding the issue of ID.

I think you're probably right. One wonders if things like the Gonzalez debacle would have ever happened if ID hadn't been prominent in the mainstream media. Then the other question, of course, is if the courts eventually settle the high school issue against ID in the Post-Wedge World will things settle down in the universities. I doubt it. Judging from the recent challenges to academic freedom, looks like ID is a hot potato in academia as well. It might take the loss of a series of law suits to make deans and university presidents back off.

One factor that may contribute to the lack of any uproar is that no one is trying to get a dualist perspective taught in the public school rooms.

And also, nobody is trying to get the materialist perspective, or evo-psych, taught either (at least not that I'm aware of), nor are they taught already. It's a debate which is taking place mostly outside the normal public sphere on both sides, which I think helps keep things cool.

Yes it is strange that there is not an uproar. Dennett, Pinker and others don't seem to want to listen to any non-material theoris of the mind, but they are in a minority.

This is sort of like the development of the Big Bang theory in the last century. Some stood against it basically because of its religous implications, but for the most part the Big Bang was accepted pretty calmly. Maybe we can learn something from that debate too, and it's a debate that's pretty much over with.

I also wouldn't be too surprised if the PhoM debate eventually spills over into the ID debate. It's difficult, imo, if not impossible, to integrate any kind of dualism, but particularly full-fledged mental realism, into a Darwinian outlook that is undiluted. I wouldn't be surprised if that's got at least something to do with why some philosophers have been reticent about going the dualist route (There's certainly a relationship there in the thinking of some, like Daniel Dennet).