Harris and Dennett on free will (Introduction)

by romansh , Monday, March 10, 2014, 06:17 (3912 days ago) @ David Turell

Then why argue with each other, since neither can be proven right. Ego!
I would agree that neither can be proven right, but if we give our concept of free will properties then I would argue free will could be proven false. That is the nature of scientific investigation.-I have to smile when someone points to someone else and says Ego! I suppose that is my ego. 
 
> > Romansh: I was moral too, but I am now striving against all odds to be amoral.
> Why? To be prevocative?
Not at all, no intention of being provocative at all here. This is where I disagree with Sam Harris. If we don't have free will the then the dichotomy of morality and immorality is unnecessary if not false.-For, me it is a logical consequence of the absence of free will.
 
> > Romansh; Regarding scientism ... sadly I don't buy the criticisms. The criticisms are generally poor. And too often science and scientism gets confounded. Scientism becomes a pejorative. 
> If you believe only science brings truth.
Again science eliminates falsehoods
Max Planck referring to science: the truth never triumphs, your opponents just die out