Q&A: The Science of Freedom
The Science of Freedom
Question
Hi, how are you?
I just finished reading the book The Science of Freedom. First of all, thank you—it was very interesting and enriching.
I wanted to ask you a question about the claim that even if, someday, the findings were to indicate that the human brain is deterministic, that claim would be invalidated by the argument of the foolish circle.
As I understand from the book, you argue that if a person has free choice, then he can rely on the facts he arrives at (unless they have been proven incorrect).
That is, if free choice exists in the world, the only conclusion a person can reach through properly conducted research is that a person has free choice.
If the world is deterministic and the findings of our mind are not necessarily connected to reality, a person can arrive at either of two conclusions—either the mistaken answer that human beings have free choice, or the correct answer that free choice does not exist.
Meaning:
1. If the scientific conclusions point to free choice, that leads to two possibilities—either free choice really exists and the person reached the correct conclusion, or free choice does not exist and our misleading deterministic brain led us to find that free choice exists. In other words, scientific findings about free choice could never resolve the issue.
2. If the scientific conclusions point to determinism, that also leads to two possibilities—either we really do have free choice and the person erred in his research conclusion, but one must still stick to that position until proven otherwise (after all, if free choice exists and the research was conducted in the accepted way, its results should have pointed to free choice), or our deterministic brain happened by chance to arrive at the correct answer. In both cases, a scientific finding that points to determinism should lead a person to adopt a deterministic position, even after the argument of the foolish circle.
I’d be happy to hear your response,
Thank you very much in advance, and have a pleasant rest of the week 🙂
Answer
Hello.
Later in that same chapter on the foolish circle (pp. 137–139), I dealt at length with this very question. See the concluding paragraph, where I summarize your claim and the conclusions that must not be drawn from it.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that you didn’t read the passage I sent you to. I address this there in great detail.
At the end of the passage I explicitly say that there really is a "whichever way you take it" consideration, which says that if I reached a deterministic conclusion, then that very conclusion itself was reached deterministically. But that does not mean that the world is deterministic in general (rather, only that this conclusion was reached deterministically), and besides, it would also require me to give up all my other intellectual conclusions as well (which determinists usually do not do). Read it again carefully.
Thank you for the response.
The book explains that one cannot relate to a finding that the world operates deterministically if that finding arises from a world in which there is freedom of will, because that leads to a contradiction.
I claim that a finding that the world is deterministic can emerge only in a deterministic world. A result that the world is deterministic cannot arise from research conducted properly in a world where free choice exists. Just as in a world with judgment and discretion there cannot be a properly conducted study showing that the sun is green.
Meaning, if there is a finding from research carried out fairly and properly showing that the brain operates deterministically, it does not make sense that it arose from a world in which free choice exists (if judgment exists, we would arrive at the correct answer). History shows that it is indeed possible for humanity to arrive at incorrect answers, but if there is a fair deterministic finding, the burden of proof is on the libertarian, who can maintain his position only if they continue investigating and discover that the research in question was not conducted properly.