Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Biochemist]

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.

[Fishteacher73]

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.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

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?

[C1ay]

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¢,

[TINNY]

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.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I don't think we have the knowledge to answer this with certainty. I believe we must first answer the question, what is life?

Now that would be a mystic thread. But a really interesting one.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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.

[pgrmdave]

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?

[bumab]

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.