Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial

[manniz]

So you're more of a coherentist? I don't embrace falsification as I find it inherently negative. I will not deny things as under all things is a truth. I work in a neo-positivist approach so far as to infinitely justify beliefs until it is evidently clear that the belief is justified. I cannot work under the notion that a belief is simply justified because it is coherent with other beliefs that are simply justified on their own merit. To only find one belief correct after falsifying all else is to leave me without any direction in regards to what is potentially misjudged.

I am not properly skeptical to the point of an existentialist approach of reality but I will not go as far as accepting beliefs on the basis that there is knowledge just for the sake of it. I embrace practical beliefs. I find it impractical to justify a belief if the belief is not based on any real experience but only theoretical, coherentist constructs.

I realize philosophical academics would probably laugh at me right now but I cannot argue on a notion of justifiable merit nor falsification. I am an infinitist, philosophically.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

A1, have you tried posting at other forums? Lots of potential catalyst waiting in the wings.

Most philosophical academics would simply ignore, as should I. I feel happy today, so cannot resist the catalyst. I learned new words though. Especially coherentist. Have not seen that one since Philosophy 101, though I am not sure if I can pronounce it correctly.