CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Free Will an Illusion?
Free Will- Being able to choose ones desires and actions not based on the laws of nature. (People can't simply be wound up and it is possible for them to choose differently at the same situtation at time.)
In the technical sense, no. Although, within that sense perhaps is the cause of this illusory ideation? I would suggest the highly contentious compatibilst notion of 'able to do otherwise'. However, in nowise is this supposed to be the modernist view I am suggesting, rather, at a given situation if you think of doing otherwise, and rationalized said thought, then your choice was freely made--but if we go into 'technicalities' then I would say your ability to rationalized perhaps could not have been freely willed (assuming genetic derivitation) therefore your rationalization on making the choice (doing otherwise) could not be an action freely willed--libertarians would stop me at genetics and concede with that notion and argue that said genetics is what is necessitated by free will. It's 3:09; I'm tired; and confused; nighty night.
Though your compatibilist notion is of its own suggestion (you didn't clarify on the 'classical' compatibilist notion of "if a then c if not a rather 'b' then c-d". Lol you can't keep promoting your "S.B Murray's" model of compatibilism. Until you become a 'renowned' philosopher then your model hold no accreditation.
On a different note, this site poses foolish debate topics. Where is it exactly you wanted me to look at?
Since you can't comprehend the point, I would suggest that your assessment skills are relatively subpar. I don't see the purpose of this post... Nobody else seems to have a problem. I shall not succumb to simplistic exoteric linguistics for just one linguistically questioned 'CD' user.
A growing body of research indicates that our actions are already set in motion before we are consciously aware of them. While more research is necessary, it is notable that thus far no findings have been made to substantiate our perception of free will as an objective reality. This, taken in conjunction with the growing body of genetic research regarding various behavioral and personality dispositions, strongly indicates that free will is an illusion rather than a reality.
A growing body of research indicates that our actions are already set in motion before we are consciously aware of them. Aren't you referring to a biochemical/mechanical process that thought is made of and calling that choosing, while skipping over that the effect of all that brain activity first results in consciousness, then consideration, assessment and finally choice?
Normally our choices are actually constrained. Clearly we all use morals and the like, along with experience involving actions and resulting outcomes, to make choices.
IMHO labeling free will as an illusion goes to far. For example you and I have made choices that go counter to reason, logic and our own experience. Why, because of a very high cognitive function called emotion. This sort of choosing can be done every day, completely without constraint. This can be called many things, but does it not fit the definition of free will? ?
He's suggesting that in the moment our emotions, thoughts, etc., collectively works together, a machine strapped to you head scrutinizing each neuro-chemical reaction, it can basically tell the psychoanalyst what decision you are going to make before you even know it. But that's only semi-deterministic. They haven't made machines that can tell me what I'm going to do tomorrow, so until then...
Where have I suggested otherwise? The part where I said "tell me what I'm doing tomorrow" was only an exemplification that would promote deterministic views as being likely true. I never said if you can't predict what I'm going to do then determinism is false.
Daver, feel free to give Harvard's personal thoughts consideration but please refer to my own explanations of my arguments rather than his interpretations of them for the purpose of debate.
Aren't you referring to a biochemical/mechanical process that thought is made of and calling that choosing, while skipping over that the effect of all that brain activity first results in consciousness, then consideration, assessment and finally choice?
No. The order of progression between those variables is expressly what this and other research addresses. This evidence simply does not support, and indeed directly contradicts, your proposed order of progression. Activity is initiated significantly before we are conscious of the choice, rendering our perception of choice merely that: a perception, as opposed to an actuality.
Normally our choices are actually constrained. Clearly we all use morals and the like, along with experience involving actions and resulting outcomes, to make choices.
That is not clear at all, and certainly not supported by research. It would be more accurate to say that (most) people use morality to understand thought and action, and that when morality affects action is not by conscious will but by the social conditioning of genetic predispositions.
IMHO labeling free will as an illusion goes to far. For example you and I have made choices that go counter to reason, logic and our own experience. Why, because of a very high cognitive function called emotion. This sort of choosing can be done every day, completely without constraint. This can be called many things, but does it not fit the definition of free will?
You can hold whatever opinion you like, but the evidence simply does not support your view. Whether we perceive our actions to be motivated by emotion or thought is irrelevant, since that perception comes after our actions have already been initiated. Simply thinking that one has free will is not the definition of free will at all.
That research is highly contentious. I would suggest you not build on a foundation of incomplete research unless you inform others thereof. That research has also been inconsistent experimentally (hence 'incomplete'). (Ref; my studies in psychoanalysis, psychology and neurology.)
The incomplete nature of the body of research was explicitly acknowledged in my original post. All statements were conditioned as observations of indication, rather than as statements of absolute knowledge.
I would suggest that interested parties conduct their own research, rather than take anything upon the word of a random person on the internet was has claimed but cannot prove their credentials and who has openly professed to not need to ever cite any sources as they are their own independent authority.
You people and your insecurities always bringing up my credentials. You can look up my assertions and probably find a renowned scientist with similarly asserted notions. You google everything else, Google my assertions. I, and people of my nature, learn about these things enough to make valid assertions. You lack of knowledge of my knowledge doesn't warrant a claim of me not being knowledgable of such subjects. Pardon me for not needing citations of obvious matter. Really, if you have a foundation of knowledge of a subject, the rest can be solved with logic and reason. I'm sorry your knowledge is limited but that's no reason to imply "because I don't know, you don't know." Quite fallacious actually.
The conclusions made from this research are fundamentally wrong and here's why. In these conclusions the so-called subconscious mind is not considered to be you. The brain activity that proceeds a decision is treated as some mysterious other who is setting up your decision for you. Lets examine this order of progression you mentioned and see what is really happening.
Lets Play Catch:
Your consciousness agrees to play catch. The ball is thrown to you.
Your eyes focus light onto your optic nerves, causing pulses to be sent to your visual cortex. A series of images is created in real time and transferred to your consciousness, along with an estimate of the balls path and speed. Using these images and this estimate your consciousness assesses your chances of catching the ball and the likely injury that could occur. Your consciousness decides to attempt the catch. Another part of your mind receives impulses describing the decision to catch the ball and all the information about path and speed. A series of muscle movements are planned then executed to move your body into position to catch the ball. During these movements, your consciousness processes a stream of visual information and determines any needed changes to the moves being executed all in real time. The brain activity before decisions were made was all ordered by your consciousness. The so-called subconscious mind is in fact directed by your consciousness. The complete system is you. The true illusion is that you are seperate from part of your brain.
In these conclusions the so-called subconscious mind is not considered to be you.
I presume that your understanding of the term "you" in this context is meant to signify the self as we perceive it to exist (i.e. what makes us us). Generally speaking, the research with which I am familiar treats the conscious as the seat of the perceived self but still includes all forms of non-conscious brain activity to constitute a part of the whole self. I see no basis for your claim that this particular research treats the non-conscious mind as independent from the conception of whole self. Rather, what this research does distinguish between is the self-aware state of the conscious mind from which the assumption of free will derives, and the non-conscious brain state which lacks that self-aware state (and, consequently, the derivative basis for free will).
The brain activity that proceeds a decision is treated as some mysterious other who is setting up your decision for you.
To the contrary, actually. This research treats our non-conscious brain states as quite integral to who we are at large, even indicating that these brain states actually exert some (if not total) influence upon our conscious state. What is indicated is not a mysterious other at all, but our specific and unique genetic compositions conditioned by our cumulative experienced stimuli.
Lets examine this order of progression you mentioned and see what is really happening. Lets Play Catch: [...]
You are effectively asserting a chicken-egg scenario, and suggesting that both myself and the research have failed to consider that the conscious mind acts first upon the non-conscious mind. There are a couple of reasons why this line of reasoning does not work.
Firstly, let us examine the "decision" you claim the conscious mind makes to catch the ball which you then assert initiates the at of catching and the subsequent awareness of having acted to catch the ball. The research in question is not looking at our awareness of having acted to catch the ball, but rather at the original conscious "decision". What the research finds is that that conscious awareness of having decided to catch the ball occurs after the non-conscious mind has already initiated that very action.
Secondly, even if your chicken-egg scenario were not actively contradicted it would still beg the question as to whether that conscious thought was not actually prompted by non-conscious stimulation. In other words, assuming a conscious decision to act to catch the ball actually would precede the initiation of that action (which it does not) then there would still remain the question as to whether that decision was actually an autonomous act of free will or if it was not instead caused by non-conscious, non-willful stimulation.
The so-called subconscious mind is in fact directed by your consciousness. The complete system is you. The true illusion is that you are seperate [sic] from part of your brain.
Neither myself nor this research have remotely indicated that the conscious and non-conscious states are separate. To the contrary, actually; this research supports my view that the two are heavily integrated. Rather than the conscious state conditioning the non-conscious as you claim, however, the relationship is quite the reverse. The conscious represents a perceptive state of awareness, but it lacks autonomy from the non-conscious at least in part if not entirely. Notably, of the two of us I am the only one to proffer any actual evidence with respect to the directionality of influence between the conscious and non-conscious states. Further, your sole refutation of that evidence has been to reassert the very claim that this research delegitimates.
I see no basis for your claim that this particular research treats the non-conscious mind as independent from the conception of whole self.
The conclusions Haynes makes clearly pit the non-conscious brain function against the conscious mind in terms of where and when decisions are made. Further the researchers repeatedly point out that their work measures only simple decisions and admits that more complex decisions are beyond their ability to measure.
What the research finds is that that conscious awareness of having decided to catch the ball occurs after the non-conscious mind has already initiated that very action No the research concludes that our perception of choosing is not accurate. There is a huge leap from pressing a button with one hand or the other and deciding to press the button in the first place. Remember this, the field of science is filled with nerds. Published findings and getting the next grant are powerful motivators for exaggeration.
The conclusions Haynes makes clearly pit the non-conscious brain function against the conscious mind in terms of where and when decisions are made.
Obviously, I disagree. Observing a unidirectional relationship between the conscious and non-conscious brain states does not in any way establish them as separate (which was your original claim and objection).
Further the researchers repeatedly point out that their work measures only simple decisions and admits that more complex decisions are beyond their ability to measure.
I never stated otherwise. I expressly stated from the offset that the growing body of research is indicative of my claims, not absolute or definitive. My point has never been that we know with reasonable probability that my view is correct, but rather that the preponderance of what evidence exists substantiates my view more than it does yours. Notably, you still have not provided any evidence supporting your view at all.
No the research concludes that our perception of choosing is not accurate. There is a huge leap from pressing a button with one hand or the other and deciding to press the button in the first place.
Since the perceived moment of choice is preceded by the action already having been initiated, our perception of free will is fundamentally unreliable. Presently, the only basis at all for claiming that free will exists has been that we perceive it to exist; with that premise discredited there is no proof that free will exists. Thus, the preponderance of evidence (while by no means complete) indicates the probable accuracy of my view over yours.
Further, for us to exercise free will it follows that we must be consciously aware of our decisions prior to having made them. If our actions precede our perceived determination to take those actions, then we were not aware of the decision until after the fact and thus could not have made a free will determination on the matter. This is not an overextension of the evidence.
Remember this, the field of science is filled with nerds. Published findings and getting the next grant are powerful motivators for exaggeration.
I never forgot. The competition for funding is actually a rather strong incentive to not overextend claims beyond the evidence, as the peer-review process that influences funding allocation is filled with competition only too willing to point out those overextensions to review boards.
The conclusions made from this research are fundamentally wrong and here's why. In these conclusions the so-called subconscious mind in is n------ see below
Every few months I hear about yet another experiment that damns the notion of free will. The ref at the bottom is from this year, and there are plenty of other experiments with similar conclusions.
You are not using the normal concept of free will. They are asking whether the universe is deterministic - if a universe where the big bang happened exactly as it did in ours, would all subsequent actions occur exactly as they have for us?
Free will, in the absolute sense, would have to be an illusion. Note that God's word says that "their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the foundation of the world". And, "the Lamb who was slain before the creation of the world." That means that our eternal fates were sealed before the world was even created, and that Christ had died for us a sacrifice before we even existed. "God guides all of your footsteps". I assure you, we will each and every one, be at the appointed place at the appointed time for our own deaths. "Anyone who is destined for prison will be taken to prison. Anyone destined to die by the sword will die by the sword." Note the word "destined".
God can give humans free will, yet still know what people are going to do because of omniscience. Therefore, God can write the Book of Life knowing the future.
We will always have free will but we may not like the outcome
Everyone knows what is the right thing for them to do in every situation in which they have to make a decision, and they have the right and choice to do so, however, many decide for whatever not to take that step and in renouncing free will make themselves a victim of the consequences.
God gives us free will. He's sovereign over everything, except we are the ones that choose to sin. God doesn't make us sin, we do. We do have free will, just remember that God is sovereign over it.
That internal conflict and resolution could still be wholly determined. This does not prevail the illusion of free will, rather, supplements the 'illusion' part even more.
A psychotic person feels they're perfectly normal. Tis the doctor that eradicates said feeling of normalcy.
In other words, you have redefined free will to signify how consciously aware one is of their subconscious desires. That is hardly the standard definition. More importantly, it really only displaces the question of autonomy; within your view we must now ask what drives the subconscious mind and whether we exercise any control over it (consciously, subconsciously, or otherwise). If our genetics and lived experience determine our subconscious desire, as research tends to indicate, then our subconscious is not itself wholly autonomous and its trajectory was predetermined at the time of conception.
The super-genius heavyweight Noam Chomsky gives a pretty damn good philosophical argument for free will here in this link. I know that in quantum mechanics they now have evidence for free will. You can google it if you like, but I doubt most people can understand that stuff. I know I can't.
Noam Chomsky is a credible authority in some areas, but in this I think his philosophy is somewhat flippant and lacking.
He observes that we have a strong impression of having free will and because we cannot explain it then it must be true. That does not follow, however. All this means is that at the time of his statements we could not explain our perception of free will... which in no way means that free will must actually exist.
He observes that if someone does not believe in free will then they must know they cannot convince someone who does and must see the effort as futile... and somehow construes that to prove that free will must exist. By that reasoning, why debate anything at all since usually the opponents never switch their views? More to the point, I do not debate people about free will because I see any purpose to it. I debate people because I enjoy it. In my view, I enjoy it because I am predisposed and conditioned to do so.
Finally, he argues that research demonstrating that our actions are initiated before we are consciously aware of having decided to act does not prove anything. His basis for that claim is that it just proves what we already know, "that decisions are mostly made unconsciously". That is precisely the point, however, since the subconscious is not the seat of willful choice; an act of free will requires a conscious awareness to be a true act of determination.
I know that in quantum mechanics they now have evidence for free will. You can google it if you like, but I doubt most people can understand that stuff. I know I can't.
If you cannot understand the research you are reading, then you cannot critically evaluate its credibility nor likely accurately interpret its results. Regardless, I have no intention of doing your research for you so I suggest that if you expect your claims to hold any weight you provide source citations.
He observes that if someone does not believe in free will then they must know they cannot convince someone who does and must see the effort as futile…...By that reasoning, why debate anything at all since usually the opponents never switch their views?
The key word in this mix is the word usually. The word usually means that sometimes people change their views. Often it is not the participants, but somebody who reads through these discussions. Free will makes this possible. If determinism is true than it follows that everything is predetermined, and if everything is predetermined you'd might as well sit around play video games and masturbate. It follows that everything is going to happen a specific way so it doesn't really matter what we do.
His basis for that claim is that it just proves what we already know, "that decisions are mostly made unconsciously". That is precisely the point, however, since the subconscious is not the seat of willful choice; an act of free will requires a conscious awareness to be a true act of determination.
Unconscious and subconscious are two different things. I think you are confusing them. Here is the key to understanding the unconscious: The unconscious is REALLY unconscious. This means you can't make a ground for anything on any matter because it is a completely mysterious realm of science that we know absolutely nothing about. (Psychology 101, no citation needed)
If you cannot understand the research you are reading, then you cannot critically evaluate its credibility nor likely accurately interpret its results.
This is pretentious as hell. Only a small minority of scientists can understand quantum mechanics. This is where scientific authority comes in. There is nothing wrong with saying you believe in something because of scientific authority. If you don't then I can point out many things in your life that you take wholly based on authority and consensus. I take it you probably don't understand the theory of vitamins, yet you believe in it, right? Why don't you tell us about the theory of vitamins.
Regardless, I have no intention of doing your research for you so I suggest that if you expect your claims to hold any weight you provide source citations.
You are acting like a lawyer now. That was a different debate, and this is a different context. You didn't give any citations prior to your accusation. Anybody can look that up. If a person does something then accuses somebody else of doing the same thing without taking ownership of his own actions, they call it a projection. You need to take ownership of your mistakes and stop sticking to your guns all the time.
The key word in this mix is the word usually. [...]. It follows that everything is going to happen a specific way so it doesn't really matter what we do.
Determinism in no way means that people cannot change their minds, it just means that they did not change their minds due to free will but rather because they were predisposed to do so when subjected to the appropriate stimuli.
Unconscious and subconscious are two different things. I think you are confusing them. Here is the key to understanding the unconscious: The unconscious is REALLY unconscious. This means you can't make a ground for anything on any matter because it is a completely mysterious realm of science that we know absolutely nothing about. (Psychology 101, no citation needed)
I was using a quote from Chomsky speaking to the issue; if he used inappropriate language then that is hardly something I could change without altering his actual statement.
Science actually indicates that your conclusions about the unconscious are outdated anyways. This source also explains that there is no codified definition of the unconscious versus subconscious (versus other forms of non-conscious) activity, as the only solidly agreed upon definition is that of the conscious from which all other terms are derivatives.
This is pretentious as hell. Only a small minority of scientists can understand quantum mechanics. This is where scientific authority comes in. There is nothing wrong with saying you believe in something because of scientific authority. If you don't then I can point out many things in your life that you take wholly based on authority and consensus. I take it you probably don't understand the theory of vitamins, yet you believe in it, right? Why don't you tell us about the theory of vitamins.
Pretentious or not, the statement is accurate. If you do not understand what you are reading, then you cannot be critical of it. Period.
There is no "theory of vitamins", but I presume you mean to indicate the science pertaining to organic compounds essential for normal growth and nutrition. With respect to that, I have not thoroughly read the research but expressly because of that I do not debate the issue or cite articles on the matter which I have not read or do not understand. The difference between myself and yourself is that you are willing to reference entire scientific fields as the basis for your arguments, while openly admitting that you are incapable of understanding them. I am not saying you cannot use quantum mechanics as others have explained it to you in your own personal life, but rather that citing what you do not understand in the context of a debate is subject to my earlier critique.
You are acting like a lawyer now. [...] You need to take ownership of your mistakes and stop sticking to your guns all the time.
Is that supposed to be an insult? In point of fact, I am acting like a debater. In debate, the burden of proof falls on those making the claims. Pointing out a lack of substantiation does not constitute a claim in debate, but is a valid formal objection to the claims being made. That has been the content of my rebuttal, particularly in this thread.
When I actually make a mistake or err in my reasoning, I openly acknowledge it. I have made concessions in debates with others, but only when they are warranted. This has not been the case in any of our exchanges.
Unless you say something particularly interesting or finally provide substantiation for those claims which remain unwarranted, I have little intention of replying again. Feel free to have the last word.
This is what you guys are debating about. Jace you need to find something better to do with your time. I am serious, don't you people better things to do with your time? I mean time is so precious and this is what you're wasting it on. You are adults, and you do realize that you're debating whether free will is an illusion? You shouldn't have to debate about this. As adults you should be able to comprehend this question about free will by yourselves.
This is what you are doing with your "precious" time: pointlessly criticizing others for not spending their time how you would like them to spend it. Please. I really could care less about what you think of how I spend my time.
I was using a quote from Chomsky speaking to the issue; if he used inappropriate language then that is hardly something I could change without altering his actual statement (………..) When I actually make a mistake or err in my reasoning, I openly acknowledge it. I have made concessions in debates with others, but only when they are warranted. This has not been the case in any of our exchanges.
I watched the clip again. Chomsky doesn't use the term "subconscious" anywhere in the video.
He uses the word "unconscious" 3x: (3:15, 4:15, 4:25)
As for your new link, subconscious doesn't mean non-conscious, and it is not interchangeable with unconscious. Subconscious is a part of the conscious mind that can be brought into focal awareness at any time. That's the scientific definition of subconscious, so your link doesn't mention the subconscious anywhere.
You are correct; I erred in my recollection of his particular semantics. Ultimately, that neither affects my understanding of his points nor the substance of my rebuttal to them. You have elected to continue pursuing a semantic tangent that is ultimately irrelevant since the content of my views remains quite clear.
There is no consistently applied scientific definition for the subconscious, unconscious, or other non-conscious state; a point expressly elaborated upon by the very source I cited which I take as considerably more credible than your own unsubstantiated assertion.
You have failed to counter the content of my rebuttals, to substantiate your claims, or to address the substance of my references. I have no intention of responding further. (Really, the primary reason I did in this case was to acknowledge the error in recollection that led to my misrepresentation of Chomsky's statements; I figured I would respond to the rest as long as I was at it).
I am correct about his particular statements, but I am also correct in definition and substance.
Definition: "Subconscious is a part of consciousness that can be brought into focal awareness."
Subconscious thereby has nothing to do with unconscious. Subconscious is not even a psychoanalytic term like unconscious.
Anyways, I don't want to talk about this subject anymore. I probably shouldn't have jumped at the definitional issue since it is relative and doesn't really matter, you have a point there.
Effectively, Kaku argues that we must have free will because there is unpredictability in the universe. The assumption being made here is that in order for determinism to be true its trajectory must be set in stone, and that any seemingly random activity must be the consequence of free will (notably, by that reasoning, electrons would have free will).
However, determinism is not fundamentally about predictability but causation. It does not matter if we cannot predict the cause or the outcome, so long as it is established that cause leads to effect and that our thoughts and actions are effect rather than cause.
However, determinism is not fundamentally about predictability but causation. Predictably and causation are NOT at odds but part of the same reality. There is no such thing as unpredictability. Cause and effect branches are so complex that we do not currently have the ability to consider enough of them to make an accurate prediction.
It does not matter if we cannot predict the cause or the outcome, so long as it is established that cause leads to effect and that our thoughts and actions are effect rather than cause.
Our thoughts and actions are both cause and effect. Our actions are not a string of effects, but rather cause-effect cause-effect. Each action results in an effect, then that effect becomes the cause for the next action.
Predictably and causation are NOT at odds but part of the same reality. There is no such thing as unpredictability. Cause and effect branches are so complex that we do not currently have the ability to consider enough of them to make an accurate prediction.
Rather than wasting time disputing the referenced authority on their field of expertise, I took the premise of unpredictability and ran with it. I do not necessarily disagree with your observation that what appears to be random even to present experts in the field is quite simply just too complex for us to understand (yet). This in no way undermines my point, since it effectively renders the objections raised by the authority against determinism invalid. If there are no random events then everything is cause and effect, a conclusion falling soundly within the purview of determinism.
Our thoughts and actions are both cause and effect. Our actions are not a string of effects, but rather cause-effect cause-effect. Each action results in an effect, then that effect becomes the cause for the next action.
I never argued that our thoughts and actions had a unidirectional relationship. Rather, I consider our thoughts to be just as determined as our actions are. To that end, I am the only one between the two of us to have offered substantiation for my view. If you are sitting on some actual evidence rather than perceptually derived assumption, please do feel free to share it though.
You know that only a small minority of scientists on this planet can go into that field and understand what they say. I'm just a little bit skeptical of your assertions, unless you have some credentials. I am not going to spend an hour on the internet and suddenly become an expert on quantum mechanics lecturing professors like Kaku on the nature of reality.
My critique had absolutely nothing to do with the physics being explained, and everything to do with the claims being extended from that knowledge. Operating on the same information being asserted in this video - electrons act randomly - I reached a different rationally derived deduction that had nothing to do with invalidating the research itself.
Yes, there is evidence for free will in quantum physics, because of the word "unpredictably" implies that not everything in the universe can be predicted, so if anybody tells you that science tells us that we can predict the behavior of any object in the universe, they're wrong.
Saying there are other choices doesn't mean the evidence supports any of the choices equally or more than another. It is entirely possible the majority of the evidence can support one of the choices despite the other choices being more numerous.
It is similar to the fallacy of ad populumn in the way you are using it.
example of the fallacy;
Your are choosing between the theory of evolution or one of the hundreds of religions creation stories to choose from. Because there are more choices for creation stories that do not use evolution they are more likely to be correct.
Do you see why this line of thinking is fallacious?
i didn't say it was evidence, i said it was vague support to have more philosophical pathways. i actually agree with your statement, though i don't think evolution contradicts any religion but biblical literalism.
i didn't say it was evidence, i said it was vague support to have more philosophical pathways.
Holy weasel words Batman! If it isn't evidence it doesn't support the conclusion. Not even vaguely.
Fallacies are like that, they don't lead to valid conclusions. It doesn't mean the conclusion is false just that the reasoning provided does not support the conclusion.
though i don't think evolution contradicts any religion but biblical literalism.
Meh, sure. I am not interested in interpreting the bible. It was just an example.
If it isn't evidence it doesn't support the conclusion. Not even vaguely.
That's really a values statement. You value scientific evidence but you don't value the fact that there are more ways to reach another conclusion. Agree to disagree, especially when there is such little evidence. Maybe it should be a side note, but in context I thought it was worth mentioning.
You value scientific evidence but you don't value the fact that there are more ways to reach another conclusion
This has nothing to do with scientific evidence or empiricism, it has to do with logic.
log·ic
ˈläjik/
noun
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"
synonyms:reasoning, line of reasoning, rationale, argument, argumentation
"the logic of their argument"
If your argument is chock full of scientific facts or spiritual or religious claims has nothing to do with how the argument is arranged and if the form of the argument is valid (deductive) or strong (induction), that is if it leads to the conclusion or not. Fallacies are errs in reasoning that do not lead to valid conclusions.
As you note, people can get to similar conclusions via different routes. This can be fine as there may be many valid/strong routes to a conclusion but when one gets to a destination via poor logic (invalid/weak) they run the risk of using the same logic on other aspects of their life which can lead to false conclusions or more unsupported conclusions.
This can lead to some problematic inconsistencies.
Compatibilism is a valid option that is intellectually tenable and supported by philosophers like David Hume, Daniel Dennett, and Shelly Kagan. It's not a "fairytale for adults" or anything illogical.
