Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial

[zenmaster]

So you have chosen foundational coherentism as your logical approach?

Larson took a coherentistic approach as anyone must do when defining building blocks. He understood the limitations, and so do I. Of course the limitations are the strength of the theory when one knows the line in the sand must be drawn.

---

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.

The problem with that line of thought is that scientists do not actually use your idea of "belief". Fortunately they are trained to know better.