Jump to content
Science Forums

Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?


Biochemist

Recommended Posts

This is continuing a discussion from the "Age and God: a Correlation" thread.

 

1) Many folks in the deterministic universe camp believe that free will does not exist, i.e. that all events in the universe are the resultant of earlier events.

2) Determinism and predictability are only tangentially related. Only a subset of deterministic events can be predicted, due to obfuscation of resultant outcomes by chaotic behavior.

3) Free will appears to exist on a subjective evidenciary basis. We can run experiements with humans subjects and ask them to make decisions, and those decisions will appear uncaused.

4) We can certainly hypothesize that there is a cause for the decisions (and that the cause is obfuscated by chaotic behavior, as in point 2 above). Ergo, free will would not exist in reality, in spite of the subjective evidence that it does.

5) If our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that the logical consequence is that all of our perceptions of observations are illusions.

6) If our perceptions of observations are illusions, can we contend the scientific method is valid?

 

Overall question: Does the contention that free will does not exist imply that the scientific method is invalid?.

 

I belive I first read about this conundrum through Francis Schaeffer. I do not know whether he originated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 322
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The easy way to solve this problem is to say it simply does not matter. If we are in a deterministic universe, then it is simply one of the accumulated result pathways. Our conception of reality or our ability to reason in it is simply irrelevant.

 

That being said, there are some arguments to support the validity of the SM. In a system that only has naturalistic laws, comprehension of them is vital to have results. I think that the SM is really the only way in which we understand things without illusion. Any other method or ideology by deffinition has to have some sort of iherent illusion built in (religion).

 

Free-will is a subjective concept, the SM examines a hypothesis objectively. Specifically measurable results that can be replicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

5) If our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that the logical consequence is that all of our perceptions of observations are illusions.

6) If our perceptions of observations are illusions, can we contend the scientific method is valid?

 

Overall question: Does the contention that free will does not exist imply that the scientific method is invalid?.

 

I belive I first read about this conundrum through Francis Schaeffer. I do not know whether he originated it.

Don't drag misticism into the reality. Free will is not an illusion. It simply does not exist. Humans are part of nature and as such, are subject to all natural laws. To presume that there is such a thing as free will for humans would exempt us from the laws of nature and we would become supernatural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't drag misticism into the reality. Free will is not an illusion. It simply does not exist.
I am not really sure how this is mystic. I suspect that all of the readers here have an impression that they elected to read this post for their own purposes. I acknowledge that the impression is subjective, but we evaluate subjective impressions in the social sciences (for example) regularly. Subjectivity does not make it less real; it makes it less measurable.

 

You can state (if you like) that free will does not exist, but it is difficult to reconcile that position with your moment-to-moment experience. If your decision to respond (or not) to this post is really deterministic, then your thoughts about it are also completely deterministic, and might have no real relationship to objective reality. They are merely reactions to previous events and conditions.

 

That would make us like deer reacting to a noise in the woods. It might be a reaction that advantages them in their environment, but is is not really understanding. It is only a reaction.

 

Would that not make it true that scientific observation is equally reactive to events, and not an indepent analysis of reliable data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we have the knowledge to answer this with certainty. I believe we must first answer the question, what is life? What is that energy that leaves our body when we die? We are clearly biological assemblies of molecules that obey the laws of nature as determinists argue. This does not address that energy, or life force, that is what we call life though. I am aware of no one anywhere that has identified what this energy is, has proven what it is, or is not, via the scientific method. IMO, any claim that it does or does not exist lies completely with one's faith. It is my opinion that it is this force of life that enables free will. I cannot prove it one way or the other and I don't think anyone else can either, thus, it is simply my belief. This can be argued until eternity until the question of life is answered so this is all I have to say about it.

 

Just my 2¢,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5) If our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that the logical consequence is that all of our perceptions of observations are illusions.

6) If our perceptions of observations are illusions, can we contend the scientific method is valid?

Would that not make it true that scientific observation is equally reactive to events, and not an indepent analysis of reliable data?
Excellent question, Biochemist. You're the man!. We have to be independent of natural law (have free will) in order to objectively validate nature via SM. Therefore, I agree (for now) that Scientific Method is invalidated without free will.

 

Also, concerning determinism, I looked up an introductory book on the philosophy of science which highlighted the problems of reductionism and consciousness. It looks like things are still open for free-will. I will type out a portion of the book later when I bring it with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5) If our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that the logical consequence is that all of our perceptions of observations are illusions.
Logical consequence? By what logic? It strikes me as a sophism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is the definition of free will, and how is it excluded by determinism? I think, though I'm not sure, that there cannot be free will because of determinism - but, our brains are self-reprogramming - could that lead to free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will implies that given two identical situtaions (hypothetically, of course) a person could decide two different things.

 

Determinism implies that given identical conditions, a person would always do the same thing (not "choose" to do the same thing).

 

Doesn't seem like a big deal at first, until you think about it. then you realize that if determinism is true, you didn't choose to read this, rather, pre-existing conditions "led" you here, and will determine your response- emotional, rational, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to be independent of natural law (have free will) in order to objectively validate nature via SM. Therefore, I agree (for now) that Scientific Method is invalidated without free will.

 

The ideal scientist is one that can be a completely independent observer, especially in the SM. That means completely distancing oneself from nature, and even viewing yourself as simply a cog in the machine. LG- i think you are close! (take that as a compliment! ;))

 

However, I do agree with Biochemist, because the phrase "independent observer" is an impossibility. One cannot be both independent of nature and an observer of nature in a deterministic universe, because the observer CANNOT be independent, by definition. So, in a deterministic universe, the independent observer is impossible. All observations would be colored by the universe itself, so no "judgements" or "decisions" could be made in an purely "rational" manner (i.e. independent of any undo influence).

 

So, a long winded statement- tear it apart! ;)

 

But it leads me to the conclusion that the scientific method NEEDS free will, for it is the only way a scientific observer can be APART and INPARTIAL in making decisions about the natural world. Free will supplies the seperation from the natural world that an impartial and independent observer needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logical consequence? By what logic? It strikes me as a sophism.
Hmmm. I didn't originate this argument, but it always struck me as having some merit.

 

If anyone actually thinks that their experience in life confirms that they have no actual independent choices, this might well seem a sophism. Lindagarette posits that free will is not an illusion, it just doesn't exist. A legitimate position, but it just does not map to most folks experience. I feel like I decided to read your post and write a response. I feel like I could have elected not to do so.

 

If we argue that our perception of our experience is so skewed that we create a perception of independent choice when there is none, it could well be argued that the same process applies to our scientific observations: we percieve order in the universe that is not there in fact. We are just responding to prior causal events, and our reactions advantage us, or they don't. There would be no intrinsic connection to reality.

 

Elaborate on why you see this as sophism, if you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...One cannot be both independent of nature and an observer of nature in a deterministic universe, because the observer CANNOT be independent, by definition. So, in a deterministic universe, the independent observer is impossible. All observations would be colored by the universe itself, so no "judgements" or "decisions" could be made in an purely "rational" manner (i.e. independent of any undo influence)....the scientific method NEEDS free will, for it is the only way a scientific observer can be APART and INPARTIAL in making decisions about the natural world. Free will supplies the seperation from the natural world that an impartial and independent observer needs.
Articulate point, B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aspect is that it requires the observation for it to occur. Just as in much of quantum theory the act of observation alters the outcome.

 

The is also debate on whether the laws of nature are truly the same as the laws of science. One side contends that the laws of science are only close approximations of the actual "truth" and merely tools. The other side contends that the laws of nature are the laws of science.

 

If one takes the idea that LOS are only aproximations then the SM only is a method of honeing these tools and not a path to the actual "truth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other side contends that the laws of nature are the laws of science.
Is there really anyone who hold to that? I am pretty sure everyone agrees that current science is not absolutely perfect.
If one takes the idea that LOS are only aproximations then the SM only is a method of honeing these tools and not a path to the actual "truth".
That does not answer the question. SM is merely a product of human brains that are determined by the BIg Bang 15b years ago! We are pre-determined to think that "SM only is a method of honeing these tools...".

It is funny to realize that staunch proponents of determinism try to avoid these problems but are instead so quick to jump to conclusions on certain other matters (no free will, god doesn't exist, consciousness is a myth etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we argue that our perception of our experience is so skewed that we create a perception of independent choice when there is none, it could well be argued that the same process applies to our scientific observations: we percieve order in the universe that is not there in fact.
You justify the generalization.

 

It may be argued that the same process might apply to our scientific observations. A subtle distinction, just the type of thing that many a sophism is based on. The conclusion you draw isn't a logical consequence.

 

It is somewhat akin to the use of a false inference rule. In formal logic, "A implies B" is equivalent to "the negation of B implies the negation of A" but it's not equivalent to "the negation of A implies the negation of B". This false inference rule can lead to unjustified generalizations. Since women can't grow a beard, every person that grows a beard is a man. Does this imply that every man grows a beard?

 

Common reply: But every man could grow a beard, although he might choose to shave! True fact, but not even this is a logical consquence of the axiom that women can't grow a beard.

 

We are just responding to prior causal events, and our reactions advantage us, or they don't. There would be no intrinsic connection to reality.
Now, that's a mighty step, from the first sentence to the second!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...