[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 157 KB, 588x819, 201003111257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10618308 No.10618308 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any scientific proof that points to free will existing?

>> No.10618310

Philosophy, not science.

>> No.10618313

>>10618308
>Is there any scientific proof that points to free will existing?
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>> No.10618318

>>10618308
We know of no measurable differences between a world in which it exists and one in which it doesn’t. How is science going to determine which of the two we’re in?

>> No.10618321
File: 252 KB, 2362x1654, DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10618321

>> No.10618326

>>10618308
arr here we go again

>> No.10618327

>>10618308
if i dont have free will how comes i can hide OP's thread.

>> No.10618329

>>10618308
Predeterminism is a meme.

>> No.10618332

>>10618313
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
No its not

>> No.10618338

>>10618332
>No its not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]

>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]

The consensus is clear.

>> No.10618341

>>10618338
Scientific consensus is not the consensus of scientists.

>> No.10618342

>>10618341
>Scientific consensus is not the consensus of scientists.
It is, by definition.

>> No.10618347
File: 16 KB, 463x191, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10618347

>>10618341
>Scientific consensus is not the consensus of scientists.

>> No.10618352

No. Scientific consensus would refer to a consensus that gains authority through science (i.e. experimentation and analysis). I do not see how free will can be reasonably "tested".

>> No.10618356

>>10618332
I'm not sure of the exact reasoning, but I can see how the scientific consensus can be for Predeterminism not being true. As any potential experiment that can be performed that shows Predeterminism to be false, the theory can claim that the experiment and the people who performed it were predetermined to get that result. This makes Predeterminism unfalsifiable and thus not scientific.

>> No.10618360

>>10618352
>I do not see how free will can be reasonably "tested".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches

>> No.10618388

>>10618360
I suppose that should be slightly changed. I don't see how free will can be supported via scientific research. None of those experimentation methods seem to support it (unless I missed something).

>> No.10618392

>>10618341
based and philosphypilled

>> No.10619213

>>10618308

No science is leaned on the idea of a deterministic existence

>> No.10619218

>>10618313
[Citation Needed]