Harris and Dennett on free will (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, March 10, 2014, 15:47 (3912 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: 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.-How do you give a concept properties?-> Romansh: 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.-I assume, in a way, this could be considered your answer to my new question above. but how scientific is setting up judgmental parameters?
> 
> Romansh: For, me it is a logical consequence of the absence of free will.-Now you are arguing for an inherent human concept of right and wrong, but each society has its own rules.
 
> > Romansh: 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-It takes time and research, as I have pointed out in the past regarding the story of the etiology of peptic ulcer and its medical cure (in the early 1980's). Today we have the crowd control of peer review and too much government money for grants bringing in politics such as the global warming foolishness (over 17 years without any). The result: faked results, paywalls, and unwanted pressures. And too many falsehoods. Science results are always open to philosophic interpretation, as in my book.