Free will illusion?

[boagie]

Xis,

We are discussing something we believe to be substantial, free spectualation is a wonderful thing, but until that free spectulation comes up with something we can chew on, then it is no different then mysticism. This thread is not intended to deal with mysticism.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by xris

His requirements are for laboratory rats not human experiences.Now tell that to the US goverment who are spending millions on researching telepathy..I think the two replies ive received proves my point.

Well, yes, but then again the US government once funded a study to find out why kids fall off their bicycles. Their finding? Because they lose their balance.

There was even an award established for government spending: Golden Fleece Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government spends money on lots of things. But guess who pays?

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by boagie

Sideline interest:Did Carl Sagan in fact merely tear down old beliefs without putting anything better in their place? Far from it! Even for those who never met him, he left behind a treasure trove of published works which put the lie to that accusation. His life was dedicated, not to tearing down, but to building a positive, integrated world view capable of providing better guidance for human beings in the centuries to come than our ancient inherited mythologies could ever do.

As he conveyed here so well: Amazon.com: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark: Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan: Books

[xris]

The likes of Brian Josepheson, Rupert Sheldrake,Lyall Watson are all mystics are they? you might not agree with them but you cant dismiss them with a superior wave your hand..

[boagie]

Xris,

I just did! No seriously, I have heard of Sheldrake, not that impressed. I have never heard of the other chap, so I cannot in good spirit dismiss what I have not been exposed to. Spectualation is wonderful, we should all incourage it, and if it truely comes up with something tangiable it should be brought forward, what do you have to bring forward that is relative to the topic of free will?

[TickTockMan]

From the introduction to A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:

---------
There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including:
the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense,
the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and
the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking.
As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.
In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called "Anthropology and the Paranormal." The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFOs, and creationism. I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them: Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word "FiLCHeRS" stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.
-----------------------------

I've posted it many times before, but here's the whole guide again: Critical Thinking Field Guide (Skeptical Inquirer Winter 1990)

Oddly enough, I've found most of the people who accuse me of being closed-minded refuse to read this guide, or if they do, they casually dismiss it . . .

[xris]

What I have is that this debate could go on forever if you dismiss the underlying reasons for the debate...for a lot of us its purely academic, for those that want to dismiss the possibility of lets say the soul of a human then the argument is simple..we have no free will..I find so many debates hinge on other beliefs or possibilities ,if you dismiss one or agree on others the debate you are discussing is the same one but on another subject..I'm not saying im right and your wrong im just saying we come to the same table with different tastes ..If we are as its appears you believe a gallon of water with an electrochemical computer stuck on the top ..no we have no free will but if we are more than that then its possible we do have the subtle ability to decide our will..

[boagie]

TickTockMan,

Excellent, thank you for both its creation and for posting it here!! I have saved it for further reference, just excellent!!! boagie

[xris]

Science can not be and can never be the total truth of our lives and our experiences it does not as yet know everything that can be examined...So many individuals can relate stories that defy science and can not be replicated by science..for me its like claiming to see a comet that no one else has seen, can you prove it? We listen for alien broadcast on the understanding there must be... but look for a soul that so many believe in and we have to have scientific scrutiny that by its invisibility defies detection...have we never heard of circumstantial evidence???

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by xris

Science can not be and can never be the total truth of our lives and our experiences it does not as yet know everything that can be examined...

I won't contest that point. However, science does provide a nice solid foundation for us to stand on while we debate the metaphysical side of things.

Originally Posted by xris

...have we never heard of circumstantial evidence???

Yep. You bet. And I'm sure there are a number of murderers walking about on our streets because of its defensible argument against actual proof.