Re: A defence of determinism


Dave Smith wrote:
What's wrong with the following defence of determinism?

There are three types of events of interest to us:

a) Events for which the causes are known.

b) Events that are caused, but for which the causes are not known.

c) Events that are not caused or are only partially caused.


This seems a simplification to me. There may be different degrees of
causation - Popper's distinction between clocks and clouds for example.
The vast majority of events of which we have any experience are thought
to be the result of multitudes of interacting causes, and no one has
been able to tease out all of the causes (even if they are jointly
sufficient). Where do you fit such complex events?

Determinists believe there are type a) and type b) events, but deny
there are type c) events. Non-determinists believe there are events of
all three types. The dispute, then, is over the existence of type c)
events, but the matter can't be resolved since the existence of such
events can neither be proved nor disproved. This means that both
determinism and non-determinism are tenable. However, there may be some
considerations that tilt the balance in favour of the former:

There are also considerations that tilt the balance against. Such as
the fact that morality is rendered an excercise in hypocrisy in a world
where no human has a choice in what they do. Or such as the fact that
science then must be predictable because human knowledge must be the
outcome of a causal process in a completely caused universe. So science
is reducndant for anyone who knows the causal laws must be able to
predict what we will know tomorrow. (Again the argument is from
Popper).


1. Determinism is more parsimonious -- it posits two types of events
rather than three.


Was it not Einstein who said that scientific theories should be as
simple as possible but no simpler? It seems to me that a metaphysics
that makes morality impossible and reason and judgement as used in
science redundant is way too simple.

2. Determinism encourages a search for causes, which might lead to
greater knowledge.

You have done a survey to show this claim is true? You have found a
sample of scientists who are indeterminist and a sample of scientists
who are determinists and shown that the latter are more productive?

If not, how do you know? Simple observation suggests that quantum
scientists were more productive than other physicists even though they
believed in a degree of indeterminancy for quantum physics is regarded
as the best tested branch of physics that has ever existed. There are
many areas of science where correlations are about the best we can hope
to find - yet research into such topics as the rise and fall of prices
on the stock exchange is enormously popular.

Perhaps you think this claim is just an inference from the nature of
determinism and human motivation? But in that case why has exactly the
opposite argument been advanced in an earlier incarnation of
determinism? Check it out. Calvinists who believed that God had already
determined who would be saved were often claimed to lose motivation to
live moral lives compared with Catholics who thought that God would
base his decision (amongst other things) on our deeds. One could argue,
in this vein, that a determinist scientist would be fatalist and give
up trying to prove something compared with a indeterminist who would be
more motivated to keep trying.


3. The assumption of type c) events doesn't lead to better or more
productive research. It isn't fruitful.

Goodness. Why is it not fruitful for psychologists to investigate human
decision making believing that each person can freely judge the options
before and choose the best? In fact hundreds of studies of this kind
exist. But on determinist grounds they are an excercise in futility.

Lance

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... are signing on are basing their agreement on trusting science ... why it is somehow wrong to accept the scientists at their word - we ... Biochemists never, of course, when they speak on evolution. ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A defence of determinism
    ... determinism and non-determinism are tenable. ... I'm not sure how indeterminism can support moral responsibility. ... sample of scientists who are indeterminist and a sample of scientists ... decision making believing that each person can freely judge the options ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ... that mimics probability in microreversibility. ... Nevertheless scientists know they are violating ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Varieties of compatibilism 1 (to be continued)
    ... If you are a determinist then morality can't exist. ... But two very relgious early scientists - Kepler and Newton ... religious doctrine of determinism into science. ... The evidence is very, very strongly in favour of it. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: How important was classical determinism to the history of the
    ... And by definition, Laplace ... And evidently, many scientists ... believed in classical determinism while making scientific discoveries. ... So I guess Laplace saw many examples of rigid causality and induced ...
    (talk.origins)