Scientific fields’ deterministic stance leaves philosophy to defend apologetic free will
Evidence
The first model, the discussion of the question whether the willthe subjectwas free or not, was particularly impressive. The individual scientific disciplines, forced to side with determinism as a result of their search for scientific laws, left the question of free will to philosophy, which answered it in terms of pre-scientific, apologetic ideas. As a result, philosophy confirmed the criminality of subjects whom the sciences presented as determined. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2554
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Both free-will affirmations and denials serve commodity society’s rule over subjects — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2556; Science’s determinism and philosophy’s free will jointly blame determined subjects — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2554; Belief in free will functions as a defense against acknowledging environmental determinism — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1154 (+4 more)
Broader Connections
- Science’s determinism and philosophy’s free will jointly blame determined subjects
#corroborates(0.80) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2554 - Belief in free will functions as a defense against acknowledging environmental determinism
#expands(0.75) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1154 - Pentland frames free will as a low-frequency statistical deviation from predictable social patterns
#responds-to(0.75) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1406 - Freedom is compatible with determinism when thought is part of the causal mix
#qualifies(0.72) - Neuroscientific determinism could erode moral responsibility depending on theory scope
#qualifies(0.72) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 332 - Radical neuroscience determinism would absolve everyone of moral responsibility
#expands(0.72) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 314