Rationally Speaking. Really?

Attending a panel on the science of freewill, I asked who outside science, philosophy and religion cared enough about free will to argue against physicalism? They agreed, no one. Post-panel I asked two panelists, "Do you expenence free will?" Both: "Yes." Do you value the experience? Both. "Yes." Why didn't you mention that in your presentation? Embarrassed mumbles.

Massimo Pigliucci on his blog "Rationally speaking" has just posted "A handy dandy guide for the skeptic of determinism." A lot of references to quantum science, relativity and chaos theory, but none to the experience of freewill. Just who is speaking rationally?


#5 Shaun 2012-12-06 08:23
Your first paragraph, see third paragraph of Steve Greene's post above. And I believe many evolutionists would see design in the result of "a stochastic process in which randomly generated items are brought into order by being operated on by some logical sorting and selecting process."

My sixth paragraph deals with a unique occurrence, the evolution of creatures capable of designer intelligently. Logic that's mind-boggling may be the appropriate kind.

What is this mind you refer to as being boggled? Was it determined that this mind be boggled?
#4 Tim Hoffnagle 2012-12-06 04:33
This essay attempts to make some kind of logical argument that evolutionists are illogical. But he fails because of many false premises - the biggest is that I know of no evolutionary biologists who say that life is "intelligently" designed.

Even saying that life is "designed" is stretching it because the definition of design infers intent. Evolution does not intend to make arms, legs, lungs, feather, wings, etc. Mutations provide options and natural selection chooses from among the available options. If the correct mutation to develop feathers never occurred, there would be no birds, despite the fact that flying is a very valuable trait for a vertebrate.

The twisted "logic" in the sixth paragraph is truly mind-boggling!
#3 Alfredo 2012-12-02 10:07
This article is rambling craziness of the sort found in mental institutions the world over.
#2 Steve Greene 2012-08-17 10:39
What a convoluted way of trying to claim that evolutionists don't want to acknowledge that natural selection produces adaptations. The problem with that pretension is precisely that adaptations being produced by processes of natural selection is exactly what evolutionary biologists do research on - research articles which they're publishing in the professional science literature by the hundreds, each and every year.

Since the professional science literature is public - a lot of it even freely available and accessible on the internet at the click of a button - one wonders what in the world the author is talking about.

In a metaphorical sense, we can speak of natural selection as "designing" things (and in fact some scientists and philosophers of science have done just that), but this isn't "intelligent" design precisely because natural selection is the results of an amalgamation of natural (unthinking) processes. Since there's no thought or goal involved, it doesn't make any sense to refer to such "design" as being "intelligent".
#1 Skeptic 2012-08-16 03:27
I have no idea what the author I this article is trying to explain.

Add comment

Security code