Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2024 2:29 pm
I appeciate your suggestions below and I wonder if they are his current final positions on things.
4) Most important of all, he has asked compatibilists to explain how in a deterministic universe one can assign responsibility. That is NOT science topic, that's a philosophical topic. Generally scientists assume determinism. The compatibilist is presuming determinsm. So, the issues are better focused on in philosophy, because the issue is not is the universe determined everywhere or is there free will in some places. Sure, then physicists and neuroscientists could weigh in.
But since compatibilists assume determinism, that's not on the table in this discussion. So, we are dealing with issues that cannot be tested for in science. It's not a science topic.
Then last, the problem is that he has made epistemological nihilist assertions. That we can't know things while at the same time elsewhere asking for what scientists believe.
The problem is that if determinism, as he has argued, means that we are potentially merely compelled to belief what we believe, this holds for whatever scientists would say. Perhaps the scientists are compelled to interpret that data the way we do. Perhaps he is compelled to think the scientists are saying X, when in fact they are saying Y.
Over and over he has denied the possibility of knowing things if determinism is the case......yet
he will then go on and ask for or mull over what scientists can demonstrate or might.
This makes no sense. His argument, weak as it is, holds for scientists telling us situations, as much as any other.
Or it is in fact him saying that scientists have free wills and somehow we have them in their company, but everyone else does not.
And, by the way, his determinism means we can never know if we are compelled to hold what seems like a logical, reasonable position, while it may not at all be assertions
utterly undermine his distinction between is and ought.
Well, let's look at this idea. 1) If this is what he believes, then there is absolutely no reason to quote arguments or make his gestural arguments in response. 2) What an odd place to blog, then.phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 2:14 pm I think that there are two reasons why he doesn't present an argument or counter-argument.
1 - His idea that arguments are useless, ineffective and merely represent dasein, compelled thoughts and/or intellectual contraptions. Let's call that the failure of philosophy.
Which is absurd. First, scientists would be mounting a specific kind of argument, generally, if they stayed within their disciplines lines, an inductive argument. Second, he would be, then, assuming that these people a) are immune to paradigmatic bias - in other words biases in their models and the current assumptions in science that lead to interpretations of data. 3) There are science forums. One could email neuroscientists. I've found that in general even nobel level researchers will respond to emails. They may not invest a lot of time, but often they respond. It's easy to find their addresses, generally. Wiki to find where they work, and look up their faculty profile there.Therefore, he asks for demonstrations and the input of scientists and neurologists who actually go beyond arguments.
4) Most important of all, he has asked compatibilists to explain how in a deterministic universe one can assign responsibility. That is NOT science topic, that's a philosophical topic. Generally scientists assume determinism. The compatibilist is presuming determinsm. So, the issues are better focused on in philosophy, because the issue is not is the universe determined everywhere or is there free will in some places. Sure, then physicists and neuroscientists could weigh in.
But since compatibilists assume determinism, that's not on the table in this discussion. So, we are dealing with issues that cannot be tested for in science. It's not a science topic.
I think this fits with the data we have better. I am not saying it's true, just saying it fits with the data. He may well believe your first point about arguments, but it doesn't quite fit his behavior Further, it's a confused reason not to actually support his positions. He certain expects objectivists to support their positions.2 - Presenting an argument requires effort and work. He doesn't want to do the work. And he doesn't want the hassle of being criticized and having to defend his argument.
Then last, the problem is that he has made epistemological nihilist assertions. That we can't know things while at the same time elsewhere asking for what scientists believe.
The problem is that if determinism, as he has argued, means that we are potentially merely compelled to belief what we believe, this holds for whatever scientists would say. Perhaps the scientists are compelled to interpret that data the way we do. Perhaps he is compelled to think the scientists are saying X, when in fact they are saying Y.
Over and over he has denied the possibility of knowing things if determinism is the case......yet
he will then go on and ask for or mull over what scientists can demonstrate or might.
This makes no sense. His argument, weak as it is, holds for scientists telling us situations, as much as any other.
Or it is in fact him saying that scientists have free wills and somehow we have them in their company, but everyone else does not.
And, by the way, his determinism means we can never know if we are compelled to hold what seems like a logical, reasonable position, while it may not at all be assertions
utterly undermine his distinction between is and ought.
