What probability would you assign to a well respected, oft-televised, senior scientist and establishment figure arguing in favor of an incompatibilist theory of free will?
I don’t think that incompatibilism is so silly it’s not worth talking about. In fact its not actually wrong, it is simply a matter of how you define the term “free will”.
What probability would you assign to a well respected, oft-televised, senior scientist and establishment figure arguing in favor of an incompatibilist theory of free will?
I don’t think that incompatibilism is so silly it’s not worth talking about. In fact its not actually wrong, it is simply a matter of how you define the term “free will”.
Definitions are not a simple matter—I would claim that libertarian free will* is at least as silly as the simulation hypothesis.
But I don’t filter my conversation to ban silliness.
* I change my phrasing to emphasize that I can respect hard incompatibilism—the position that “free will” doesn’t exist.