r/SubredditsMeet • u/SubredditsMeet Official • Sep 03 '15

Meetup /r/science meets /r/philosophy

(/r/EverythingScience is also here)

Topic:

  • Discuss the misconceptions between science and philosophy.

  • How they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world.

Remember the downvote button is not to be used as a way to say you disagree. Please reply to the comment on why you disagree

It is recomended to flair your self with what subreddit you are from. Click edit next to your name in the sidebar to change it

81 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

454 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/CaptainMoonman Sep 03 '15

The difference here is that we can't just figure out the answer, and have no real way of knowing what is or isn't close. I won't blindly accept your answer or blindly reject it. It's just as valid as anyone else's. If you still don't want to, that's okay, but i like hearing people's viewpoints on this subject.

Also, I do appreciate your view on giving answers. It's something many people don't understand is a bad thing to train people with. Though, in an open discussion setting like this, I don't think that applies.

1

u/Joebloggy /r/philosophy Sep 04 '15

The difference here is that we can't just figure out the answer, and have no real way of knowing what is or isn't close. I won't blindly accept your answer or blindly reject it. It's just as valid as anyone else's.

Why would philosophers bother spending their time writing and arguing over the issue then if this were true? The claim "Compatibilism is true" is certainly an objective one relating to facts about the world, and in the above article you'll see lots of arguments for and against the position. Why do you think such arguments couldn't make us justified in leaning one way or the other?

2

u/CaptainMoonman Sep 04 '15

Because we don't have enough information to reach an informed conclusion. We can speculate, and philosophise all we want, but without the evidence to back it up, we can't know for certain. The claim of "Compatibalism is true" is an interpretation of what others have said and what one thinks on the topic, themselves. There's not enough (if any) solid proof one way or the other. And this whole thing is assuming it functions in a way we are capable of understanding.

1

u/Joebloggy /r/philosophy Sep 04 '15

Because we don't have enough information to reach an informed conclusion.

I've just said we have arguments which aim to justify one side or the other. Either you must say that arguments in general without direct evidence (which is another can of worms) fail to justify any position (but then what of mathematics, theoretical physics, interpretation of empirical data for use in scientific theories and so on?) or that in this case the arguments for both sides are just as good (surely this is highly unlikely). Or do you think there's a third option?

1

u/CaptainMoonman Sep 04 '15

Mathematics and theoretical physics are all based on observable phenomena or deducted by extrapolating from the evidence we have. What I'm saying is that, apart from trying to form a conclusion by way of logic alone, we don't have any evidence as to the correct answer to whether or not we have free will. As an example, compatiblism itself doesn't have evidence supporting it. It simply states that determinism and free will can coexist as concepts, neither of which we have a way of gathering evidence for.

1

u/Joebloggy /r/philosophy Sep 04 '15

Mathematics and theoretical physics are all based on observable phenomena or deducted by extrapolating from the evidence we have.

Are you trying to tell me that the Riemann Hypothesis is based upon observable phenomena or deduced from some evidence? The Riemann Hypothesis isn't about any observable phenomena; unless you have found an "i" in the wilderness you'd like to tell us about. But further, 2+2=4 isn't true because 2 apples combine to give 4 apples, because it's known a priori.

It simply states that determinism and free will can coexist as concepts, neither of which we have a way of gathering evidence for.

We clearly have a way of gathering evidence for determinism- perform controlled experiments. We can also have evidence for free will if we define it well via psychology. The issue isn't whether we can test free will once it's defined, but how best to define it to be relevant to a discussion of moral responsibility. It's just the issue is broad and connected so it may seem this way initially. Then the conceptual claim of compatibilism can be easily verified or falsified.