Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received. Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions. As such, the conclusion cannot be trusted.
Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists.
Thinking to Believe 
February 23, 2023 at 3:09 pm
Hi Jason!
I hope you are not serious about your claim that scientists cannot discover if free will exists or not.
May I ask, politely, what your background is before I structure my comments, appropriately?
I think I understand your reasoning but I’m unclear how you can be so dogmatic that scientists could not discover what may or may not exist, nor how you have determined that you know that free will exists.
It could be that no homo sapien on this earth can discover the truth about free will and that everyone who thinks they know is deluding themselves about knowing. The truth may boil down to a guess that may or may not be correct.
LikeLike
February 23, 2023 at 3:55 pm
interesting post but …………. it’s kind of irrelevant as it only matters if free will exists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 23, 2023 at 5:23 pm
Hi Paul!
Jason Dulle, who originated the post believes that free will does exist and he is sure that ‘science’ cannot prove that it does. I’ve asked for some clarification as you may have noticed in the first reply to his post.
I want to know how he knows that free will does exist and science by its nature is likely to find that it doesn’t.
You may argue that we don’t know and can never know but I recall an experiment that explored this very issue.
Dinos
LikeLike
February 24, 2023 at 10:42 am
@dinoconstant says:
Jason didn’t say that science couldn’t prove free will. He said that in a deterministic universe, science would be unable to prove determinism because the alleged proof is determined. There is no independent analysis of the data. The experiment and the analysis are all predetermined to an effect that just is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 25, 2023 at 5:50 am
Dear Scalia,
I have noticed that Jason is slow to reply to contributors on his website and we discuss different interpretations of what we think he means to say. Also, he appears to sacrifice clarity for brevity, particularly with this current post on free will.
Firstly, determinism is not a requirement of “scientists”, some of whom are very imaginative, particularly the renowned Physicist, Einstein, who developed his famous theories without experiments. Determinism is a concept of philosophy and below is a definition from the Oxford dictionary:
Determinism
noun PHILOSOPHY
“the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.”
You can understand my surprise when it appeared to me that Jason implied that scientists had to be deterministic in their work and why I gave Einstein as a clear example that this is not true.
Secondly, you have misquoted Jason here,
“….in a deterministic world,” and not as you’ve stated,
“….in a deterministic universe …”
Thirdly, Jason shows a misunderstanding of how scientists work. They can’t start with a hypothesis when they investigate an unknown phenomenon. They would be looking for evidence of the existence of Free will rather than to prove its opposite, determinism, which is a philosophical concept and not a requirement of science.
Fourthly, Jason has insulted scientists by writing,
“The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received.”
This might be true of the chemists in the pharmaceutical industry but it is a sweeping generalisation to apply it to all scientists, or even to those investigating evidence of the existence of “free will.”
Fifthly, Jason goes on to write, “Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions.” I try to keep abreast of important scientific findings in several scientific disciplines, but I have never heard of a
recent scientific study on free will. If Jason has one in mind, he should enlighten us, his readers and followers. Also, it would be more likely that such work would be carried out in the field of Cognitive psychology and not as Jason wrote,
“Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions.”
I hope that I have clarified my position now, and I’m sorry that my post to the second contributor was unclear and too brief.
Please refer to me by my Christian name and not as:
@dinoconstant
I do not have a Twitter account.
Dinos Constantinou
LikeLike
February 25, 2023 at 5:44 pm
Dino, you write:
I agree. Jason is quite busy, so that explains the brevity of his posts and his infrequent interaction with his blog’s pundits. He is this site’s administrator and only moderator. And given his schedule, his sporadic involvement is understandable.
That said, running a philosophical blog requires greater attention. Ed Feser runs a blog all by himself, but his posts are extremely substantive (most of the time), and he does what he can to anticipate objections and to address them. Of course, plenty of his blog’s participants disagree with him, and he infrequently interacts with them, but in my estimation, his OPs more than adequately address the objections of the dissenters. Jason should follow suit and pay more attention to detail.
Jason does not argue that determinism is a requirement of science. Where do you see that in what he wrote?
Given that Jason appears (at least to me) to be speaking universally (e.g., The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received.), I took his use of “world” in the universal sense (see item 6 – the system of created things: UNIVERSE).
But I see this as a confirmation of Jason’s previous arguments. Atheist commentators here and elsewhere have defended determinism as if it has been proved by science. Jason is only repeating what he has said in the past. In essence, science cannot prove determinism. It is, as you say, a philosophical question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 28, 2023 at 1:04 pm
Scalia,
We are in the same boat. Both of us are trying to put the meat onto the skeleton presented to us by Jason in his article about “Free will and science.”
To make any more headway, we need to hear from Jason. I have a strong suspicion that he has in mind the deplorably constructed and poorly interpreted results of the Libet experiment in the early eighties. At the risk of delayed moderation, I’ve included a 2-minute video presentation within this response, for reference and comment.
Also, I am certain that we all know of scientists who believe in free will. I believe that given the resources, I could construct an experiment to prove that free will does exist. Then, I might prove that the philosophical concept of determinism should be binned. Alas, I retired 11 years ago.
You wrote,
“In essence, science cannot prove determinism. It is, as you say, a philosophical question.”
How about focusing some effort to prove that free will does exist?
Dinos (Feb 28, 2023)
LikeLike
February 28, 2023 at 5:04 pm
Dinos,
Scalia’s response to you accurately captures what I would have said to you. The point of the post was both limited and simple: Scientists could never “discover” that determinism is true even if it were true. It’s not a matter of experiment, but logic.
I never said anything about the ability or inability of science to prove that free will exists. My point was not to talk about free will, but determinism and the inability of science to prove that determinism is true. I have read of some experiments that purport to demonstrate the reality of free will. I think that’s interesting but not definitive because this is primarily a philosophical issue.
LikeLike
February 28, 2023 at 5:05 pm
Scalia,
Thanks for jumping in there for me!
You are right that I am very busy. I work 80 hours a week while simultaneously trying to maintain a family, a blog, friendships, and a podcast. While I would like to interact with every comment on this blog, it’s just not feasible.
As for the brevity of my posts, I’m not often accused of brevity so I’ll take that as a compliment. Be that as it may, keep in mind that a blog is intended for posts rather than essays. Posts are meant to capture specific thoughts, not to address entire topics and foreseen objections. People often try to get more mileage out of a post than they should. They want it to address what they want to talk about rather than what the author wants to talk about.
LikeLike
February 28, 2023 at 8:07 pm
Dear Jason,
I sent you a reply to your Yahoo email address.
Kind regards,
Dinos Constantinou
LikeLike
March 1, 2023 at 10:28 am
Jason, 80 work hours per week is huge! It’s no wonder you’re strapped for time. Time is also a very precious commodity for me. I have to be very selective about the blogs and posts I comment on.
LikeLike