"We have to understand each other's conceptual framework (e.g., materialism, idealism, etc) before we can understand how to properly interpret empirical findings."
And how do we understand another's conceptual framework?
How do we relate our network of relationships of ideas with that of another? How do we map the other's network? Enter: R. Stafford's derivation of the laws of physics as the minimum tautological framework of information exchange!
It seems to me that Luis is using the word "material" in a different sense than Harv is. Luis's meaning of "material" seems to include all that IS, so by definition everything is material. Harv uses the word "material" in the sense of matter or energy ?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You look out the window and see material objects. But your experience of these objects is influenced by your prior collection of ideas. Thus a meteorologist might see patterns in the sky that a non-scientist might not identify.
You interact with material things; update your way of looking at the world, and these ideas partly shape your interaction and perception of new material things. So what is first? An idea, or a matter-experience?
But "What is first" is a time-based question. The answer is that something basic underpins both matter and idea, something outside time: relationship.
Creation: "idea" becomes "object"; "idea" and "object" are one. You are one of God's ideas!
How R. Stafford steps beyond math, physics, and philosophy: he identifies how ideas and objects can be thought of as the same thing. So the controversy "philosophical basis first" versus "materialism first" is solved by stepping outside time and seeing the chicken and the egg, the wave and the particle, matter and energy, as coming from a common origin through the law of non-contradiction.