exam? Flashcards
(6 cards)
Has science given us any reason to think we don’t have free will?
Yes, science challenges free will in several ways:
Neuroscience (Libet’s experiments) shows brain activity precedes conscious decisions, suggesting unconscious processes drive choices before awareness.
Genetics and biology indicate that our behavior and decisions are heavily influenced by inherited traits and neurochemistry, limiting true autonomy.
AI and big data can predict human decisions based on patterns, implying our choices may follow deterministic or highly predictable pathways rather than genuine free will.
However, critics argue these findings don’t fully disprove free will but invite a more nuanced understanding.
Truth and Validity
Truth and validity are separate concepts in logic. Truth concerns whether a statement reflects reality — for example, “The Earth orbits the Sun” is a true statement. Validity, however, refers to the structure of an argument: an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true. For instance, the argument “All cats are mammals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all cats are animals.” is valid and true. But even an argument with false premises can be valid, such as: “All fish can fly. All flying things are birds. Therefore, all fish are birds.” This is valid but not true.
Ambiguity
Ambiguity arises when a word or phrase has more than one possible meaning, making the sentence unclear. For example, “I saw her duck” can mean either that you saw a woman crouch or that you saw the duck she owns. This is a case of lexical ambiguity (word-level). There’s also syntactic ambiguity, like in “The chicken is ready to eat,” which can mean either the chicken is going to eat or be eaten. Ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings, so clear communication often requires resolving it through context.
Deduction and Induction
Deduction is reasoning from general principles to specific conclusions. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion must also be true — for example, “All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Induction, on the other hand, draws general conclusions from specific examples — for instance, “The sun has risen every day in my life, so it will rise tomorrow.” While inductive reasoning is common in science and everyday life, it does not guarantee certainty — it deals in probability, not logical necessity.
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
This fallacy occurs in conditional (“if-then”) statements when one wrongly assumes that denying the antecedent implies the denial of the consequent. The form is: “If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.” This is invalid reasoning. For example: “If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet.” This ignores other possible causes of wet streets, like a street cleaner. It’s a logical error because the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow.
Is Compatibilist Free Will Really Free Will?
🟩 Point 1: Compatibilism preserves moral responsibility in a deterministic world
Compatibilists (like Hume and Frankfurt) argue that free will means acting according to your own desires without external coercion. Even if our desires are determined, we’re still free as long as we act voluntarily. Critics say this misses what people really want from free will — the ability to have done otherwise.
🟩 Point 2: Compatibilism avoids the metaphysical problems of libertarianism
Libertarianism insists that for real freedom, actions must be uncaused — but this leads to randomness, not control. Compatibilism instead grounds freedom in rational self-determination, avoiding these metaphysical difficulties. It’s more practical, but some say it’s less meaningful.
🟩 Point 3: Compatibilism may dodge, not solve, the free will problem
By redefining freedom to fit determinism, compatibilism might be avoiding the deeper issue. If our values and choices are shaped by forces beyond our control, are they really ours? Critics argue compatibilism offers the appearance of freedom, not the genuine autonomy we care about.
