Upload File

defining the terms of the debate...defining the terms of the debate when we approach a new topic for...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear
12
“Science leaves no room for free will." 1 The “Big Questions” debate series—made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation—gives students the opportunity to think critically about the place of humanity in the natural world by asking them to analyze and debate the best arguments on each side of a series of topics at the intersection of human nature, science, and ethical life. The 2016-2017 Big Questions topic is, “Science leaves no room for free will.” This topic analysis will serve as a brief introduction to this year’s topic. It is intended primarily to familiarize you with the core interpretive questions raised by our topic. In other words, it is intended to help you understand exactly what questions are being raised by the topic, what the primary areas of debate will be, and what students will need to prove in order to successfully affirm or negate the topic. Secondarily, this analysis briefly reviews some of the most common and interesting arguments in favor of each side of the topic. In subsequent topic analyses, we will zero in on particular arguments on both sides of the topic, treating them in further depth. The aim here is only to point you in various directions for further research. Toward that end, an initial bibliography of sources for further research is also included. The sources included were selected primarily on the basis of being approachable and clear—but still intellectually rigorous—texts for introducing students to this year’s topic. Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear understanding of a topic’s key terms, we will not know what either side needs to prove over the course of the debate in order to win. As we will see, the definition of terms is especially important for our topic this year because much of the debate about the relationship between free will and science turns on how we choose to answer preliminary questions like, “What is free will?” In other words, what abilities does a person need to possess in order for us to be willing to affirm that they possess free will? Here are some initial considerations about the key terms in our topic. “Science” As participants in contemporary life, we are all at least loosely familiar with the character of science as an investigative methodology, an explanatory enterprise, and a body of knowledge. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the proper definition of “science” is an area of live dispute. Still, for our purposes we can come to a sufficient understanding of the term simply by identifying a number of elements that are commonly at play in definitions (and disputes about the proper definition) of science: • Science involves a systematic method of acquiring knowledge about and explanations of the natural world through observation and experimentation. • Science aims to achieve (or, at least approach) a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the natural world.

Upload: others

Post on 24-May-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

1

The“BigQuestions”debateseries—madepossiblebyagenerousgrantfromtheJohnTempletonFoundation—givesstudentstheopportunitytothinkcriticallyabouttheplaceofhumanityinthenaturalworldbyaskingthemtoanalyzeanddebatethebestargumentsoneachsideofaseriesoftopicsattheintersectionofhumannature,science,andethicallife.The2016-2017BigQuestionstopicis,“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill.”Thistopicanalysiswillserveasabriefintroductiontothisyear’stopic.Itisintendedprimarilytofamiliarizeyouwiththecoreinterpretivequestionsraisedbyourtopic.Inotherwords,itisintendedtohelpyouunderstandexactlywhatquestionsarebeingraisedbythetopic,whattheprimaryareasofdebatewillbe,andwhatstudentswillneedtoproveinordertosuccessfullyaffirmornegatethetopic.Secondarily,thisanalysisbrieflyreviewssomeofthemostcommonandinterestingargumentsinfavorofeachsideofthetopic.Insubsequenttopicanalyses,wewillzeroinonparticularargumentsonbothsidesofthetopic,treatingtheminfurtherdepth.Theaimhereisonlytopointyouinvariousdirectionsforfurtherresearch.Towardthatend,aninitialbibliographyofsourcesforfurtherresearchisalsoincluded.Thesourcesincludedwereselectedprimarilyonthebasisofbeingapproachableandclear—butstillintellectuallyrigorous—textsforintroducingstudentstothisyear’stopic.DefiningthetermsofthedebateWhenweapproachanewtopicfordebate,agoodfirststepistodefinethetermsofthetopic.Withoutaclearunderstandingofatopic’skeyterms,wewillnotknowwhateithersideneedstoproveoverthecourseofthedebateinordertowin.Aswewillsee,thedefinitionoftermsisespeciallyimportantforourtopicthisyearbecausemuchofthedebateabouttherelationshipbetweenfreewillandscienceturnsonhowwechoosetoanswerpreliminaryquestionslike,“Whatisfreewill?”Inotherwords,whatabilitiesdoesapersonneedtopossessinorderforustobewillingtoaffirmthattheypossessfreewill?Herearesomeinitialconsiderationsaboutthekeytermsinourtopic.“Science”Asparticipantsincontemporarylife,weareallatleastlooselyfamiliarwiththecharacterofscienceasaninvestigativemethodology,anexplanatoryenterprise,andabodyofknowledge.Perhapssurprisingly,however,theproperdefinitionof“science”isanareaoflivedispute.Still,forourpurposeswecancometoasufficientunderstandingofthetermsimplybyidentifyinganumberofelementsthatarecommonlyatplayindefinitions(anddisputesabouttheproperdefinition)ofscience:• Scienceinvolvesasystematicmethodofacquiringknowledgeaboutandexplanationsof

thenaturalworldthroughobservationandexperimentation.• Scienceaimstoachieve(or,atleastapproach)acoherentandcomprehensive

understandingofthenaturalworld.

Page 2: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

2

• Scienceaimstoidentifyasetofgenerallawsthatgovernthestructureandbehaviorofthenaturalworld.• Scienceseekstotesthypothesesagainstobservablephysicalevidence.• Scienceis(orproduces)anorganizedbodyofknowledgeaboutthenaturalworld.

Inaskingwhetherscienceleavesroomforfreewill,wearereallybeingaskedtoconsidertworelated,butdistinct,waysthatsciencemightbeincompatiblewiththeexistenceoffreewill:(1)Ontheonehand,itmightbeclaimedthataparticularexperimentalfinding(orbodyofexperimentalfindings)orbodyofobservationalevidenceposesachallengetothebeliefintheexistenceoffreewill.Forexample,thosewhoclaimthatsciencedeniestheexistenceoffreewilloftencitetheexperimentalfindingsofneurobiologistBenjaminLibet.TheyclaimthatLibet’sexperimentsdemonstratethatour“decisions”toactaremadeunconsciously.Therefore,theyclaim,our“decisions”couldnotbemanifestationsoffreewill,sincewearenotsomuchasawareofthose“decisions”atthetimeatwhichtheyaremade.1SettingasidethedetailsofLibet’sexperiments,aswellastheveracityoftheconclusionsdrawnfromthem,wecanseethatthechallengetofreewillbeingposedhereisthataparticularsetofexperimentalfindingsdisprovetheexistenceoffreewill.(2)Ontheotherhand,itmightbeclaimedthatbeliefinthebasicprinciplesofscientificinquiry,scientificexplanation,orthescientificworldviewisincompatiblewithbeliefinfreewill.Letustakeanexample.FrenchmathematicianPierre-SimonLaplacewrote:

“Wemayregardthepresentstateoftheuniverseastheeffectofitspastandthecauseof its future.An intellectwhichat a certainmomentwouldknowall forces that setnature inmotion, and all positions of all itemsofwhich nature is composed, if thisintellectwerealsovastenoughtosubmitthesedatatoanalysis,itwouldembraceinasingleformulathemovementsofthegreatestbodiesoftheuniverseandthoseofthetiniestatom;forsuchanintellectnothingwouldbeuncertainandthefuturejustlikethepastwouldbepresentbeforeitseyes.”2

Laplacewasexpressingaviewcommonlyreferredtoasdeterminism:thecompletedescriptionoftheuniverseatanypointintimecombinedwithacompletesetofthelawsthatgovernthenaturaluniverseentailsacompletesetofeverythingthatistrueabouttheuniverse(including,therefore,everythingthathaseverhappenedandeverythingthatwilleverhappen).Often,thosewhoargueforthetruthofdeterminismarguethatacommitmenttothebasicexplanatoryambitionsofthenaturalsciencessimplyrequiresbeliefindeterminism.Theymayfurtherclaimthatdeterminismisincompatiblewiththeexistenceoffreewillbecausewe

1 However, for a detailed and illuminating discussion of Libet’s experiments, see Mele 2014. For a contrasting interpretation of those experiments, see Harris 2012. 2 Laplace, Pierre Simon. 1951 (translation). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Translated by W.F. Truscott and F.L. Emory. New York: Dover Publications.

Page 3: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

3

cannotplausiblybesaidtofreelychoosewhatwedoifwhatwedowasdeterminedlongbeforewewereeveninthepicture.Now,onecoulddebatewhetherbeliefinsciencerequiresbeliefindeterminism.Onecouldalsodebatewhetherbeliefindeterminismrequiresdisbeliefinfreewill.Allofthisisquitethorny,andwedonotneedtopursuethequestionfurtherhere.Themainpointisthis:deterministsofthesortjustdescribedarenotprimarilymakingtheclaimthatthisorthatexperimentalfindingposesachallengetotheexistenceoffreewill.Theyareclaimingsomethingmorebasic:beliefinthescientificenterprise(anenterprisewhichtheytaketoinvolveacommitmenttodeterminism)isincompatiblewithbeliefintheexistenceoffreewill.Thisisanexampleofthesecondwayinwhichsciencemightbesaidtoleavenoroomforfreewill.Inevaluatingargumentsonthetopic,studentswillneedtoemploytheskillofidentifyingwhetheranargument—orapartorpremiseofanargument—againsttheexistenceoffreewillposesascientificchallengeofthefirsttypeorthesecondtype.Importantly,claimsagainsttheexistenceoffreewilloftenimplicitlydependonacombinationofthesetwochallenges.“Leavesnoroomfor”Thereisnogreatmysteryaboutthisclause,butitisworthtakingamomenttorecognizewhatitmeansintermsofthestrengthoftheclaimbeingassertedbythetopic.Consideranexample.Anumberofscientificstudiesin“unconsciousbias”demonstrate,orpurporttodemonstrate,thatgradersexhibitbiasesalongdemographic(e.g.racialorgender)lines,evaluatingtheexactsameworkmoreorlessfavorablydependingoncuestheyaregivenastothedemographiccharacteristicsofthestudentpresentedashavingproducedit.Supposethatyouthinkthatthisfindingisconvincing.Youwillthenthinkthatanactivitythatmayappeartobeentirelyundertheconsciouscontrolofadiligentteacher—theassigningofgradestostudentwork—isatleastpartlyinfluencedbybiasesthatarenotbeingconsciouslycontrolledbythatteacher.However,thetopicdoesnotmerelyaskuswhetherscientificfindingsdemonstratethatfreelywilledactionsmakeupasomewhatsmallerportionofthetypicalperson’sbehaviorthanwemaypreviouslyhavebelieved.Afterall,apersonmightbelievethatsomehumanbehaviorfallsinthecategoryofbeinganautomatic,instinctual,orotherwisenon-consciousresponse.Theymayevenbelievethatresponsesofthissortareresistanttoconsciousattemptstochangethem.Infact,almosteveryonethinkthisaboutatleastsomehumanbehaviors(consider,forexample,thebodilyneedtoblinkone’seyes).Still,noneofthisnecessarilyamountstobelievinganythingliketheclaimthathumanbehavioringeneralisautomatic,instinctual,orotherwisenotconsciouslycontrolled.Itisthisgeneralbeliefthatisreallyattheheartofourtopic.Thetopicraisesageneralandstrongchallengetotheexistenceoffreewill:itasksustoconsiderwhetheraproperappreciationofscience(itsexperimentalfindings,itsfoundationalprinciples,andsoon)isfundamentallyincompatiblewith—thatis,leavesnoroomfor—theexistenceoffreewill.

Page 4: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

4

Ofcourse,onemightthinkthatscientificfindingsaboutaparticularaspectorsegmentofhumanbehaviorteachus(or,areatleastsuggestiveof)adeepertruthabouthumanfreedomingeneral.Thereiscertainlyroomtodebateclaimsofthattypewithintheconfinesofthetopic.Itissimplyworthnotingthatsomeadditionalargumentisneededtomoveusfromtheweakerclaimthatscienceteachesusthatsomehumanbehaviorfallsoutsidethescopeoffreewilltothestrongerclaim—theoneatissueinthetopic—thatscienceleavesnoroomforfreewill.“FreeWill”“Freewill”isthetrickiestterminourtopictodefine.Infact,indebatesabouttheexistenceoffreewill—intheacademicliterature,aswellasinthecultureatlarge—itisasoftenthemeaningoffreewillthatisindispute,asitistheevidenceofwhether“freewill”exists.Inyourresearchonthetopic,youwillevenfinddisputesbetweenauthorswhoessentiallyagreeaboutthesetofevidencethatisrelevanttoassessingtheexistenceoffreewill,mostlyagreealsoabouttheirevaluationofthatevidence,andyetendupdisagreeingaboutwhethertoconcludethatwehavefreewill.Whattheyaredisagreeingabout,inshort,iswhatitreallymeanstosaythatwehavefreewill.Accordingly,successfullydebatingourtopicinvolvesnotonlybeingabletoanalyzeandarguetheevidenceabouttherelationshipbetweenscienceandfreewill,butalsobeingabletoanalyzeandargueaboutwhatwereallymeanwhenwetalkabout“freewill.”Thereareavarietyofviewsaboutthemeaningof“freewill”asaterm,butasastartitishelpfultodividetheseviewsintothreemaincamps.Onewaytothinkaboutthedisputebetweenthesethreecampsisthattheydifferintheirviewofhowstrongaconceptionoffreedomisatplayinfreewill.Inotherwords,whatononeviewcountsasprovidingforgenuinefreedomofwilllooksonanotherviewasifitguaranteesonlythesemblanceoffreedom,ratherthanthegenuinearticle.Herearethethreeviews,whichIhaveorderedfromleaststrongtomoststrong:The“RationalDeliberation”ViewOnthisview,weshouldbecountedashavingfreewillifwehavetheabilitytoactonthebasisofourreasoningaboutwhattodo.Ifwecanidentifycaseswhereweareawareofconsciouslydeliberatingaboutwhattodo—weighingourreasonsforandagainstaparticularaction,consideringalternatives,andultimatelydecidingwhattodo—,andweareabletosaythatthisconsciousdeliberationwasthebasisofourperformingtheactionthatwedecidedtoperform,thenwecountashavingfreewillonthisview.Mostoften,itistakenasanupshotofthisviewthatfreewillisonlypossiblewhereweactvoluntarily,i.e.withouttheinfluenceofundueforce.Insomecasesthisforcemightcomeintheformofexternalcoercion,asitdoeswhenwearethreatenedwithviolenceifwedonottakeaparticularaction.Inother(morecomplexanddisputed)cases,thisforcemightbeinternal,aswhenapersonispathologicallycompelledtoactbyamentalillness.

Page 5: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

5

The“DeepOpenness”View3Onthisview,actingonthebasisofaconscious,reasoneddecisionisnotsufficienttocountasexercisingfreewill,thoughitisnecessary.Whatisrequiredinadditionisthat,whenyoumakeaconscious,reasoneddecisionaboutwhattodo,itmustbegenuinelypossibleforyoutomakeadifferentdecision,giveneverythingasitisatthetimeyoumakethedecision.Here“everything”hasaverybroadmeaningthatincludesthingslikeyourconsciousstateofmind,goals,thoughts,andemotions,butalsothingslikeyourbrainstates,upbringing,socialcontext,andphysicalenvironment,andeventhestateoftheuniverseanditshistoryasawhole.Thatdramaticlistshouldmakeitclearthatthisviewasksustoprovemoreabouttherobustnessofourdecisionmakingabilitiesinordertocountashavingdemonstratedthatwehavefreewill.The“ReasonasaNon-NaturalCause”ViewThefinalviewisthemostdifficulttoexplain.Itstartsbytakingseriouslyaninsightofthefirstview:theabilitytoactonthebasisofconsciousreasoninganddecisionmakingiscentraltotheideaoffreewill.However,thisviewmaintainsthatpossessingtheabilitytoactonthebasisofconsciousreasoninginvolvesagooddealmorethanonemightinitiallythink.Considerwhatwemeanby“reasoning”andwhywethinkthattheprocessofreasoningisamanifestationofourfreedom.Onitsface,theprocessofreasoningaboutwhattodoinvolvestheconsiderationofargumentsaboutwhattodo,theacceptanceofsomeofthoseargumentsbecausewebelievewehavesufficientreasontoendorsethemasgoodarguments,and,ultimately,thedecisiontoactinsomewaybecausewehavereasonedthatitisthebestwaytoact.ItmakessensethatIviewtheprocessofreasoning(andresultingcourseofaction)sodescribedasexpressingmyfreedom:throughouttheprocess,IammakingupmymindaboutwhatIbelieveIshoulddo.Theconclusionofthisprocess—mydecisionabouthowtoact—entirelyreflectswhatIthink.Inshort,myactionreflectsmeandmydecisions.Itisthemanifestationofasortofmentalfreedom,ofamentalrealminwhichIamrunningtheshow.Whatdoesallofthishavetodowiththeideaof“reasonasanon-naturalcause”?Thatphraseisdifficulttograsp;itinvokestheveryabstractideaofdifferenttypesof“causes.”Wecanunderstandthisideaintermsofdifferentusesoftheword“because.”Forexample,Imightsay,“Thetreefelldownbecauseanespeciallystronggustofwindblewitover.”Imeanthattheforceofthewindexplainswhythetreefelltotheground.Imightalsosay,“IwenttothegymbecauseIwanttobecomehealthier.”ImeanthatmywantingtobecomehealthierexplainswhyIwenttothegym.Thesetwostatementsappeartohaveasimilarstructure,butwemightthinkthatthestatementsoffertwofundamentallydifferenttypesofexplanations.Inthecaseofgoingtothegym,myactionisexplainedbymythinkingthatitisgood,proper,ordesirablethatIgotothegymbecauseIthinkthatdoingsowillcontributetomybeinghealthier.Hopefully,ifIdidnotthinkthat,thenthatexplanationofmyactionwouldbeafalseone.Inthecaseofthefallentree,however,whatisgood,proper,ordesirablehasnothingtodowithit.Climatologicalconditionsexplainthewind,andtheforceexertedbythewindonthetreeexplainsthetreefallingdown.Allofthatwillholdtrueregardlessofwhetheranyonethinks

3 This view is commonly taken to be a candidate view of what free will must involve, but I have borrowed the name for it from Mele 2014.

Page 6: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

6

thatitisgood,proper,ordesirablethatthewindblowsoverthetree.Wemightregisterthisdifferenceintypeofexplanationbysayingthatthefallingofthetreeisexplainedsolelybytheforcesofnature,whereasmyactionisexplained,inpart,byarationalcause—acausethatproducesitseffectbecauseIendorsethedesirabilityorgoodnessofit.Onthisview,then,rationalcausesaredistinctfromnaturalcauses,andourabilitytothinkofouractionsasareflectionofourfreelyreasoningaboutwhattododependsonthisdistinction.Ifwecannotthinkofourreasoningasadistinctivesortofexplanationofouractions,thenitmayappearthatwearedecidingwhattodowhenwereasonaboutwhattodo,butultimatelywearelikethefallentree:blownaroundinourownmindsbyforcesthatoperateonusindependentlyofwhetherwethinkthattheyshould.Thisviewissometimesdiscussedastheviewthat,ifhumanbeingspossessfreewill,thenitmustbebecausehumanbeingshavesomethingcalledasoul.Thisterminologymakessomesense,butforourpurposes,itmightmisleadinglybringtomindunnecessaryreligiousorspiritualcommitments.Aswehaveseen,proponentsofthisviewmightbemotivatedbyconsiderationsthathavenothingtodowithreligiousorspiritualbeliefs.Accordingly,amoreprecisewayofdescribingthisviewmightbetosaythatitmakesthefollowingclaim:ifhumanbeingspossessfreewill,thenitmustbebecausehumanbeingshavetheabilitytocausethemselvestoactinacertainway(touseanawkwardphrase)becausetheyhaverationallyconcludedthattheyshouldactinthatway.Inotherwords,“freewill”isthenameforabeing’sabilitytocausesomethingtohappen,atleastinpart,byforceofreason,ratherthanmerelybyaforceofnature.***Nowthatwehavethreecandidateviewsofwhat“freewill”involves,itisnaturaltowonderwhichviewweshouldadoptinsettingthetermsfordebateaboutthetopic.Inotherwords,howshouldstudentsgoaboutarguingforoneoranotherviewofwhattheterm“freewill”meansinthecontextofourtopic.Obviously,thisareaofargumentisanimportantoneforstudentstoengagein.Withoutmakingadecisionaboutwhichviewoffreewilltoadopt,wewillnotbeinapositiontosaywhetheranygivenargumentinthedebatecountsasevidenceeitherinfavoroftheexistenceoffreewill,orinfavorofascientificdisproofofitsexistence.For,howcouldwesaythatifwedonotevenknowwhattheterm“freewill”means,i.e.unlessweknowwhatabilitiesapersonneedstopossessinorderforustobewillingtoaffirmthattheypossessfreewill?Eachofuscouldconsultourownintuitionsaboutwhatisinvolvedinfreewill.Uponreflection,weallprobablyhavefeelingsaboutthematter,andthesefeelingslikelypointusinthegeneraldirectionofoneofourcandidateviews.Thisiscertainlynotabadplacetostart.However,itisnotapromisingplacetoend,sinceitleavesuswithoutawayforwardinanycasewherethereisadisagreementofintuitionsamongtheparticipantsinadiscussionordebate.Herearethreeotherwaysthatwemightapproachthequestionofwhatweshouldunderstandtheterm“freewill”tomean:

Page 7: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

7

(1)Wecouldlooktosurveystudiesofwhatpeople(peoplewhoarenotselectedonthebasisofbeingparticipantsinacademicdebatesaboutfreewill)ordinarilythinktheterm“freewill”means.Believeitornot,thereisabodyofliteraturethatspeakstothisquestion.SeeMele2012,MonroeandMalle2010,andNahmiasandThompson2014.(2)Wecouldreflectontherolethattheconceptoffreewillplaysinourindividual,interpersonal,social,andpoliticallives.Thebeliefsthatwehaveaboutfreewillshapeourviewsofpersonalresponsibility,charactereducation,criminaljustice,luckandmerit,andsoon.Totakeoneexample:ifyoubelievethat,atleastinsomecases,criminalsoughttobepunishedbecausetheirchoicesdeserveretribution,thenyouprobablybelievethatthosechoicesweremanifestationsofthecriminal’sfreewillinsomesense.Accordingly,wecanask:whatviewoffreewilldoweneedtooperateunderinordertopreserveorjustifyothercommonlyheldviews(aboutcriminaljustice,forexample)?Askingquestionslikethisoneisagoodwaytocheckwhetheradoptingaparticularunderstandingoftheterm“freewill”forthepurposesofdebatewillmaketheoutcomeofthatdebatesignificantorinterestingintermsofourlife.Ifweshowthatscienceleavesroomfor“freewill,”butonlyonadefinitionunderwhichourbeliefin“freewill”isinsufficienttowarrantanyofourothercloselyheldbeliefsabout,say,personalresponsibility,thenthiswillnotbeaveryinformativeresult;for,thatsenseof“freewill”apparentlydoesnotreallymattertous.(3)Wecouldargueforoneoftheviewsoffreewillbyarguingthattheotherviewsinfactdependonit,sothattheotherviewscannotbeunderstoodasplausiblealternativestoit.Relatedly,wecouldargueagainstaviewoffreewillbyarguingthatitisincoherent,orotherwisefailsbyitsownlights.Thisargumentativerouteisbestunderstoodbylookingatexamplesofit.Hereisone.Recallthatonthefirstviewoffreewill,wecountashavingfreewillifwehavetheabilitytoconsciouslyreasonaboutwhattodoandtoactonthedecisionthatwemakeasaresultofthatconsciousreasoning.Onthesecondview,thisisnotenough.Wealsoneedtobeabletosaythatwecouldhavemadeadifferentdecision,evenifeverythingasidefromthatdecisionremainedthesame.Now,proponentsofthesecondviewtendtoarguethatwhatthefirstviewrequires—consciousreasoningandactingonthebasisofthatreasoning—isnotsomethingwecangenuinelyhave,unlesswehavefreewillunderstoodasthesecondviewdefinesit.Theyreasonthatifwecouldnothavemadeadifferentdecision,evenifeverythingelseaboutusandtheworldremainedthesame,thenwewereneverreallyconsciouslydeliberatingaboutourdecisionatall.Itmayhaveseemedtousthatwewerecarefullyconsideringwhichofseveralalternativeactionstotake,butinfactwehadnochoiceinthematter—wehadtomakethedecisionthatwemade.Ifthisargumentiscorrect,thenthefirstviewoffreewillisnotacompetitortothesecondviewoffreewill,sincewecouldnevercountashavingfreewillinthefirstsenseunlesswecountedashavingitinthesecondsense.Fromtheperspectiveofanyoftheviewsoffreewill,onecouldmakeargumentsthattheotherviewseitherdependonthatview,orthattheotherviewsareincoherentinawaythatthatviewisnot.Commontermsintheliterature

Page 8: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

8

Beforeturningtoabriefoutlineofargumentsoneachsideofthetopic,weshouldgooverthemeaningofafewtechnicaltermsthatarenotpresentinthewordingofthetopicitself,butthatyouwilllikelyencounterasyouresearchit.Above,weencounteredthetermdeterminismanddefineditastheviewthatthecompletedescriptionoftheuniverseatanypointintimecombinedwithacompletesetofthelawsthatgovernthenaturaluniverseentailsacompletesetofeverythingthatistrueabouttheuniverse(including,therefore,everythingthathaseverhappenedandeverythingthatwilleverhappen).Youwillnodoubtencounterthenamesofthreedifferentpositionsaboutthequestionofwhetherscienceleavesroomforfreewill:compatibilism,incompatibilism,andlibertarianism.Wecandefineeachofthesepositionsaccordingtotheirviewofdeterminismandwhatconsequencesdeterminism(iftrue)hasontheexistenceoffreewill.Compatibilistsmaintainthatthetruthofdeterminismdoesnotruleouttheexistenceoffreewill.Compatibilistsoftenalsobelievethatdeterminismisfalse,buttheircentralpointisthat,evenifdeterminismistrue,itdoesnotthreatenfreewill.Incontrast,incompatibilistsbelievethat,ifdeterminismistrue,thenfreewilldoesnotexist.Someincompatibilistsbelievethatdeterminismistrueandfreewilldoesnotexist.Libertariansareincompatibilistswhobelievethatdeterminismisfalseandthatfreewillexists.Asyouencounteradditionalunfamiliartermsinthecourseofyourresearch,agoodreferenceforquickandreliabledefinitionsisHaggard,Mele,O’Connor,andVohs2015,whichisalexiconoftermsastheyarecommonlyusedindebatesaboutfreewill.Thislexiconincludesanumberoftechnicaltermsthatyoulikelywillnotneedtoknow,soitisbestusedasareferencetoconsultwhenyouencountertermsyouwouldlikedefined,ratherthanasasourcetobeginbyreadingstraightthroughonitsown.AbriefoverviewofargumentsoneachsideAsyoubeginyourresearchonourtopic,itmighthelptobearinmindsomebasicvarietiesofargumentsoneachsideofthetopic.Thiswillhelpyouwatchoutforrelevantargumentsasyoulookatthesuggestedmaterials.Later,wewillexaminetheseargumentsinsignificantlymoredepth.Forthemoment,thegoalisonlytoprovideyouwithinitialguidepostsasyoubeginyourownresearchandthinkingaboutthetopic.ConsiderationsontheAffirmative:Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill• Naturally,thehigherthebarissetfordemonstratingthatwehavefreewill,theeasieritis

toprovethatscienceleavesnoroomforfreewill.Accordingly,itmakessensefortheaffirmativetoarguethatarobustsetofconditionsmustbemetinordertoprovethatwehavesomethingthatamountsto“freewill.”Thus,itisintheaffirmative’sinteresttoargueforoneofthestrongerviews(outlinedabove)ofwhat“freewill”means.Ofcourse,italso

Page 9: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

9

makesensefortheaffirmativetoarguethat,evenonweakerviewsoffreewill,scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill.

• Thereareavarietyofneuroscientificstudiesthatpurporttodemonstratethatour

decisionsaretheproductofbrainactivityofwhichweareunaware.Thesestudiesuseelectroencephalogram(EEG)orfunctionalmagneticresonanceimaging(fMRI)technologytomonitorsubjects’brainactivityastheyareaskedtomakedecisions.Thestudiesclaimtodemonstratethatbrainactivitythatcorrespondstothe“decision”totakeactionisdetectablepriortosubjectsreportinghavingmadeaconsciousdecision.Ifyouwouldliketomakeargumentsonthebasisoftheseexperiments,itiscriticalthatyoufamiliarizeyourselfwiththedetailsoftheirmethodology.Itisalsocriticalthatyoubepreparedtodefendnotonlythedataproducedbytheexperiments,butalsotheresearchers’interpretationofthatdata.

• Therearealsorelevantstudiesofhumanbehaviorfromtheperspectiveofsocial

psychology.Thesestudiesvarygreatlyinformatandsubjectmatter,buttheirpointofcommonalityisthattheyidentifywaysinwhichfactorsoutsideofaperson’scontrol,andperhapsevenoutsidethescopeoftheirawareness—factorssuchasaperson’senvironment,socialcontext,andupbringing—significantlyshapetheirconduct.Again,youshouldbepreparedtospeakaboutnotonlytheconclusionsdrawnbytheauthorsofthesestudies,butalsototheirmethodologyandtheirreasonsforinterpretingtheirdataastheydid.

• Theconclusionsthattheaffirmativecandrawfromthefindingsofneuroscienceandsocial

psychologywillbesignificantlystrengthenediftheaffirmativeisalsopreparedtoarguethatgeneralfeaturesofscienceasanenterpriseorframeworkforexplainingtheworldareincompatiblewiththeexistenceoffreewill.Oneformthatthisargumentcantakeistheclaimthatscientificexplanationentailsthetruthofdeterminism.Thisisanimportantvarietyofargumentfortheaffirmativeinitsownright.However,italsohelpsprovideafavorablecontext(fortheaffirmative)forinterpretingtheexperimentalfindingsmentionedabove.Forexample,viewedfromtheperspectiveofageneralcommitmenttodeterminism,aneurosciencestudy,evenifitisimperfectormorelimitedinitsconclusionsthantheaffirmativemighthope,lookslikeapositivestepinthedirectionofprovidinganexplanationofhumanbehaviorinawaythateliminatesfreewillfromtheequation.

• Someopponentsoffreewillarguethattheideaoffreewillisincoherentonitsface,either

becauseitissubjecttoadilemma.Brieflystated,thepurporteddilemmaisthis:eitherouractionsareentirelydeterminedbypriorcausesoutsideofourcontrol,orthesetofpriorcausesdoesnotdetermineouractions.Intheformercase,ouractionsarenotdirectedbyfreewill,butratherbyadeterministicsetofpriorcauses.Inthelattercase,wehavetheopportunitytomakeadecision,butitappearstobeanexerciseinrandomselection,sincethedecisionisleftentirelyopenbyeveryfactor.Onemightarguethatascientific

Page 10: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

10

explanationofhumanbehaviorthateliminatedfreewillfromthepicturewouldavoidthisproblem,whichitselfisasymptomoftheinabilityoffreewilltoprovideasatisfactoryaccountofanyofourbehavior.

ConsiderationsontheNegative:Scienceleavesroomforfreewill• Thenegativedebaterislargelytaskedwithmountingadefensivemaneuver.Theyneedto

proveonlythatnothingaboutscienceprovidesuswithsufficientevidencetoruleoutfreewill.Thisisparticularlytrueifthenegativecanargueforafairlyunambitiousviewofwhatfreewillinvolves.Accordingly,itmightbeinthenegative’sinteresttoargueforaweakerviewoffreewill(outlinedabove).Onaweakerviewoffreewill,theaffirmativehasmoreworktodoinordertodemonstratethatscienceleavesnoroomforfreewill.Moreover,onaweakerviewoffreewill,wehavefairlyobviousinitialevidenceforbelievingintheexistenceoffreewill:ourpersonalexperienceofregularlymakingupourmindsaboutwhattodo.Ofcourse,thenegativemightalsochoosetocombinethisargumentativetacticwiththetacticofdefendingtheexistenceoffreewill,evenunderaverystrongviewofwhatfreewillinvolves.

• Asignificantpartofthenegative’sdefensivetaskwillbetowarrantdoubtsaboutthe

designorfindingsofthestudiesavailabletotheaffirmative.Thereareseveralcrucialquestionstoconsiderhere.Dothestudiescitedbytheaffirmativeprovesomethingabouthumanactioningeneral,ordotheyinsteadmerelydemonstratesomethingaboutaveryparticularsubsetofhumanactions?Aretherealternativewaystoexplainthedataproducedbytheaffirmative’sstudies—waysthatdonoteliminatethepossibilityoffreewill?Dothestudiesonlyseemtothreatentheexistenceoffreewillbecausetheymakeunnecessaryassumptionsaboutwhatmustbeinvolvedindecisionmakingandaction?

• Researchpresentedbytheaffirmativeislikelytopaintapictureofhumanlifeasfullof

unconscious,automaticbehaviors.Fromtheaffirmative’spointofview,thispicturedemonstratesthatouractionsarenotmanifestationsoffreewill.Thenegative,however,mightofferanalternativeinterpretationofthispicture:muchofhumanbehaviorinvolvesunthinking,orautomatic,responsesnotbecausetheseresponsesareunfree,butbecausetheseresponsesmanifestourdeeprelianceonbothourcharacterandourskills.Aperson’scharacterandskillinnavigatingtheworldarebothsignificantlyshapedbyaprolongedandcontinuousattempttoshapeoneself,withtremendoushelpfromothers,ofcourse.IfIreachoutwithoutthinkingtohelpastrangerwhohasfallenonthestreetortoblockaballthatisflyingatmyface,isthisevidencethatmybehaviorisautomatic(inthesenseofbeingunfree,aproductofmysteriousforces),orisitevidencethatmybehaviorexpresseswhoIaminadeepsense,asensethatisatleastpartiallyreflectiveofwhoIhave,overtime,freelychosentobe?

• Wesawthattheaffirmativecanarguethatgeneralfeaturesofscientificexplanationare

incompatiblewithfreewill.Thenegativehasacounter-claimtomakeinthisareaofthedebate.Thenatureofscientificexplanationbyitselfcannotthreatentheexistenceoffree

Page 11: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

11

will,unlesswealsobelievethatscienceistheonlylegitimatesourceofexplanationoftheworld,oratleastthesourceofhighestauthority.Incontemporarylife,thismightbeabroadlyheldbelief.However,anotherpossibilityisthatsciencespeakswiththehighestauthorityaboutcertaintypesofworldlyphenomena,butnotabouteverytypeofworldlyphenomena.Perhapstherearesomephenomenathatareundoubtedlyreal,butthatmustbeexplainedinnon-scientificterms(whichisnottosayanti-scientificterms).Onthestrongestviewof“freewill”outlinedabove,humanactionsarephenomenaofthistype.Defendingthispositionrequiresthenegativetotakeonasignificantargumentativeburden,butitalsostandsachanceofchallengingtheaffirmative’sapproachinaveryfundamentalway—awaythatmanyoftheaffirmative’sargumentsmanynothelpthemdisprove.

Bibliography* AverygoodpointofentryintoourtopicwouldbetoreadAlfredMele’sFree:WhyScienceHasn’tDisprovedFreeWillandSamHarris’FreeWill.Thesetwotextsareshortandaccessibleintroductions,andtheyapproachourtopicfromopposingperspectives.

AreweFree?.Slate.Retrievedfromhttp://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-freeCoyne,JerryA.“YouDon’tHaveFreeWill.”TheChronicleofHigherEducation.Retrieved fromhttp://www.chronicle.com/article/jerry-a-coyne-you-dont-have/131165Dennett,DanielC.“ReflectionsonFreeWill:AReview.”SamHarris.Retrievedfromhttps://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-willFreeWill.ClosertoTruth.Retrievedfromhttps://www.closertotruth.com/topics/consciousness/free-willHaggard,P.,Mele,A.,O’Connor,T.,andK.Vohs.2015.“FreeWillLexicon.”InSurrounding FreeWill:Philosophy,Psychology,Neuroscience.EditedbyAlfredR.Mele.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress.Harris,Sam.2012.FreeWill.NewYork:FreePress.Harris,Sam.“TheMarionette’sLament:AResponsetoDanielDennett.”SamHarris.Retrieved fromhttps://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lamentHolton,Richard.“TheProblemofFreeWill.”WirelessPhilosophy.Retrievedfromhttp://www.wi-phi.com/video/problem-free-willIsFreeWillanIllusion?.TheChronicleofHigherEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://www.chronicle.com/article/Is-Free-Will-an-Illusion-/131159/

Page 12: Defining the terms of the debate...Defining the terms of the debate When we approach a new topic for debate, a good first step is to define the terms of the topic. Without a clear

“Scienceleavesnoroomforfreewill."

12

Mele,Alfred.2012.“AnotherScientificThreattoFreeWill?”Monist95:422-40.Mele,Alfred.“DoesFreeWillExist?.”BigThink.Retrievedfromhttp://bigthink.com/videos/does-free-will-existMele,AlfredR.2014.Free:WhyScienceHasn’tDisprovedFreeWill.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.“MindOverMasters:TheQuestionofFreeWill.”WorldScienceFestival.Retrievedfromhttp://livestream.com/WorldScienceFestival/events/4063353/videos/88765079Monroe,A.,andB.Malle.2010.“FromUncausedWilltoConsciousChoice:TheNeedtoStudy, NotSpeculateAboutPeople’sFolkConceptofFreeWill.”ReviewofPhilosophyand Psychology1:211-24.Nahmias,Eddy.“IsNeurosciencetheDeathofFreeWill?.”TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/?_r=0Nahmias,E.,andM.Thompson.2014.“ANaturalisticVisionofFreeWill.”InCurrent ControversiesinExperimentalPhilosophy.EditedbyE.O’NeillandE.Machery.Boston: Routledge.O’Connor,Timothy.“FreeWill.”StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.Retrievedfromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/Strawson,Galen.2003.“OnFreeWill.”RichmondJournalofPhilosophy4.Retrievedfrom http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp4_strawson.pdfStrawson,Galen.“YourMove:TheMazeofFreeWill.”TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfrom http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/your-move-the-maze-of-free-will/


GOVT 2305 Defining Key Terms. We will begin with a definition of a few terms

Defining the Debate: Crude Oil Exports · Defining the Debate: Crude Oil Exports Trisha Curtis, Director of Research Upstream and Midstream ... production passes 1 mbd, and refinery

W d kay defining nasa the historical debate

Defining Basic Terms

Hermeneutics Lesson III Defining Some Terms

The Crucible Questions, Literary Terms, and Debate

DEFINING PROPERTY TYPES & APPRAISAL TERMS€¦ · DEFINING PROPERTY TYPES & APPRAISAL TERMS/ Page 4 DEFINING PROPERTY TYPES & APPRAISAL TERMS/ Page 5. DRIVE BY APPRAISAL . An exterior

Dual Language Programs Defining Terms Defining Options Defining Results

Coming to Terms: Defining "Interoperability" for Health Care

Defining the International Public Enemy, the Political Struggle behind the Legal Debate on International Terrorism_Jörg Friedrichs

Defining the Terms - augsburgfortress.org … · Defining the Terms Since our focus is ... DrinkingfromtheHiddenFountain:APatristicBreviary, ed. Thomas Spidlik (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian

Strategies for Defining and Understanding Critical technology integration Terms

Agile from the executive floor - defining agility in business terms - Agile Practitioners Israel 2015

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE. Table of Contents What is it LD Debate Structure Terms to Know Constructive Arguments Affirmative Negative Cross

Powerpoint defining photographic terms

2019-2020 Debate Terms and Conditions · A. Policy Debate Competition Rules 1. Definition: Policy Debate is organized oral argu - ment which, in the setting of interscholastic competition,

Defining Terms. Tutoring. Mentoring

MRS Debate Participation v Protection: defining the boundaries of research with children

Defining and Controlling the Heterogeneity of a … · Defining and Controlling the Heterogeneity of a ... (in terms of reproducibility, realism, control ... pour effectuer des experiences

Defining photographic terms

ublic Forum Debate - Chester County Intermediate Unit · DEFINING PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects a posi- tion posed by the resolution

Classroom Activity – Lesson 1: “Defining Terms”

Let’s Debate!. This is not a debate! Basic Terms Debate: a competition in which two opposing teams make speeches to support and PROVE their arguments

Annex 1: Defining MCL Lending Terms Sustainability and... · Annex 1: Defining MCL Lending Terms ... PIA rating, IMF-World Bank DSA status based on total ... Sustainability Analysis,

Argument Building - Lets spread English debate in …ENG...Debate Vocabulary - By Lili L.L. Common terms in every debate… Theme The category of the motion (i.e. social, politics,

Drugs DRUGS The difficulty of defining key terms Paternalism and liberty Decriminalisation Legalisation

Defining WhistleblowingINTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACADEMY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 2 Defining Whistleblowing The whistleblowing debate is gaining momentum not only in the anti-corruption

Speech and Debate Terms Basic Definitions Every Speechie Should Know!

Chapter Twelve. Defining some terms censusPopulation ElementsSample

STRATEGIES FOR DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION TERMS Ahmed Fagehi SPRING 2012

Defining Child Labour a Controversial Debate

Strategies for Defining and Understanding Critical technology integration Terms

Defining an MVP in Plain Terms

Defining kpi in terms of unsafe acts/conditions and near miss

Cabrini Connections, Tutor/Mentor Connection: Defining Terms