I've seen a number of arguments against free will but they seem to all include a definition that is self-contradictory. I don't really have a background in philosophy so perhaps there is a definition that does work that I haven't heard of yet.
Even Harris' arguments seem to have an obvious flaw, or at least it seems obvious to me. If I were having a conversation with Harris about his book and his views on free will, I guess I would ask what the Michelson-Morley experiment would be. They tested a hypothesis about ether wind and failed to detect it. This failed experiment showed that ether wind didn't exist. A similar experiment would be the attempt to detect proton decay. Harris didn't describe such a test in his book.
So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? If this can be stated then presumably the experiment could be performed and the issue could be settled. On the other hand, if such an experiment cannot be described then perhaps the definition is the problem.
Even Harris' arguments seem to have an obvious flaw, or at least it seems obvious to me. If I were having a conversation with Harris about his book and his views on free will, I guess I would ask what the Michelson-Morley experiment would be. They tested a hypothesis about ether wind and failed to detect it. This failed experiment showed that ether wind didn't exist. A similar experiment would be the attempt to detect proton decay. Harris didn't describe such a test in his book.
So, what would the equivalent be for free will? What is it that a person who has free will could do, but someone without free will could not do? If this can be stated then presumably the experiment could be performed and the issue could be settled. On the other hand, if such an experiment cannot be described then perhaps the definition is the problem.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2hpQXHg
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire