DOCSLIB.ORG

Below, You'll Find Some Student Responses to the Short Written

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Below, You'll Find Some Student Responses to the Short Written Below, you’ll find some student responses to the short written questions from the quiz covering the Freedom/Determinism problem. Each of these students responded fully and accurately to the question and so received full credit. Though these examples don’t exhaust the possible correct responses, and some are a bit better than others, each is illustrative of the level of depth and quality that is expected of a satisfactory response. In some cases, I’ve taken the liberty to correct minor grammar and spelling errors. In some cases I’ve reproduced only the relevant portions of the students’ answer. 26. What are the basic similarities and differences between libertarianism and hard determinism? Student A: Libertarianism and hard determinism are the same in that they agree on incompatibilism. If a person is predestined, then they cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. However, they disagree on whether people are actually predetermined. Determinists say that all actions were inevitable, based on preceding causes. Libertarians say that not all actions are inevitable and people are affected by causes but free to choose their actions. Therefore libertarians believe in moral responsibility. Student B: Both of these views believe that if we are determined, that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions. Libertarianism believes that we are not totally determined, so we must be morally responsible for some of our actions. Hard determinism believes we are determined, so we cannot have moral responsibility and that we have no metaphysical freedom. While Libertarianism believes we do have metaphysical freedom. Student C: The Libertarian and the Hard Determinist agree that if our choices are determined, then people are not morally responsible for their actions. They both agree with circumstantial freedom, but the Libertarian believes in metaphysical freedom (genuine free will) while the Hard Determinist does not. Neither agree with compatibilism—we are either free or determined. The Hard Determinist will state that every single event is a result of prior events, and though Libertarians agree to cause and effect [in most cases], they still think that [at least some of] our actions in effect are not written in stone. 27. What are the basic similarities and differences between hard determinism and compatibilism? Student A: Compatibilists and determinists believe in predeterminism and that all actions are the inevitable result of deterministic causes. However, they disagree on the notion of moral responsibility. Hard Determinists say we have none, while Compatibilists claim we don’t need metaphysical freedom to be morally responsible, but only circumstantial freedom. Therefore, as long as no immediate external forces influence our actions, but only internal wants and desires influence our actions, then we are “free” and morally responsible. Student B: Hard Determinism and Compatibilism agree that we are [completely] determined. However, Hard Determinism [states] that if we are determined, then we are not morally responsible for our actions while Compatibilism [states] that we are morally responsible for some of our actions. In other words, Hard Determinism and Compatibilism believe in universal causation and absolute determinism in our actions. While Compatibilism believes that we are determined, we are sometimes morally responsible for our actions, depending on external and internal causes (i.e. [when we have] circumstantial freedom.) 28. Short Essay (5 points): Choose one of the following options (A-C) and produce a brief (approximately one paragraph in length) reply on a separate piece of paper. A. How would the determinist reply to each of the following criticisms? (a) "When I make a choice, I could have chosen differently." (b) "The fact that I have to deliberate before making a decision proves that I am not determined." (c) "It is impossible to predict another person's behavior." Student A: A. The Determinist would say that you could not have chosen differently. Every action in your life is simply the necessary result of all the preceding causes both internal and external. That made it inevitable you would make the choice you made. B. That fact that you deliberate before making a choice proves nothing, you are simply suspended like a magnet between two opposing causes. However you will always make the choice of the cause that is acting on you more strongly. C. It is only impossible to predict another person’s behavior because we are not witness to all the causes acting on them. If you know all the causes on a person, of course you could predict exactly what they were going to do because they could never act another way. For example the internal causes that would have made me answer prompt B is my desire to defend existentialism, however it was met by a stronger internal causes, my desire to answer the question I perceived to be the easiest, and therefore it was an inevitable action that I would answer prompt A. Student B: A. If human beings are not outside the bounds of nature, which is most probable, then it is reasonable to assume that a person’s actions are determined. To say that we are free because we can choose, is a position which cannot be supported. Choice is an illusion. An illusion that is determined to appear. B. The same applies to the counterargument of deliberation. Since we operate within the bounds of physics, our deliberation is only a step along an unbroken chain of causes. No counterargument that tries to show metaphysical freedom through physical action can hold up to the scrutiny of the laws of physics. C. To say a person’s actions are unpredictable is only supported by a lack of information. If all variables in human action were discovered, human action could be predicted. B. What does Jean-Paul Sartre mean when he says "existence precedes essence"? Using his notions of "facticity" and "transcendence," explain why he thinks you are not determined even by facts over which you had no control (such as your gender). Student A: “Existence precedes essence” means that objects, ideas, or items exist before they have value assigned to them. For example, Sartre argues that life has no meaning until we assign a meaning to it. The life exists and then we assign an essence. The fact that you were born a certain gender [a matter of facticity] has no significance until you assign meaning to it [an act of transcendence]. It is bad faith to deny your freedom and responsibility based on which gender that you were born. C. Discuss why compatibilists think that determinism and freedom are compatible. Explain how a libertarian would critique the compatibilist's notion of "free action." No Students responded to this prompt. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot
    Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot Carol A. Newsom 1 Introduction For reasons that are not yet entirely clear, sharp disagreements about pre- determinism and free will became a significant feature of Jewish theological stances in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Josephus provides the most ex- plicit consideration of these issues in ancient Jewish sources, as he attempts to distinguish the positions of the three major Jewish sects with respect to the philosophical category of “fate” (εἱμαρμένη). Josephus identifies the position of the Essenes as believing strongly in fate, to the apparent exclusion of free will (Ant. 13.172). Similarly, modern scholarly treatments of the Qumran yaḥad have acknowledged the very strong predeterminist element in their thinking, attested in a variety of sectarian or closely related texts.1 At the same time, there has been a degree of perplexity as to what to do with the obviously volun- tarist statements and assumptions that are present in these same documents. A variety of suggestions have been made, mostly to the effect that the sectar- ians were inconsistent or not fully systematic in their beliefs.2 This may in- deed be the case, though Jonathan Klawans argues that, properly understood, all deterministic systems are consistent with voluntarism in a rather minimal 1 I take the Qumran yaḥad movement to be Essene, though I consider it possible that the term “Essene” may also have referred to groups not formally part of the yaḥad. For examinations of the phenomenon of predestination in Qumran sectarian literature and closely related texts, see J. Licht, “The Concept of Free Will in the Writings of the Sect of the Judean Desert,” in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Lectures Delivered at the Third Annual Conference (1957) in Memory of E.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Libertarianism Or Compatibilism Capture Aquinas' View on the Will? Kelly Gallagher University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2014 Can Libertarianism or Compatibilism Capture Aquinas' View on the Will? Kelly Gallagher University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Comparative Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gallagher, Kelly, "Can Libertarianism or Compatibilism Capture Aquinas' View on the Will?" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 2229. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2229 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Can Libertarianism or Compatibilism Capture Aquinas’ View on the Will? Can Libertarianism or Compatibilism Capture Aquinas’ View on the Will? A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy by Kelly Gallagher Benedictine College Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, 2010 Benedictine College Bachelor of Arts in Theology, 2010 August 2014 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. Dr. Thomas Senor Thesis Director Dr. Lynne Spellman Dr. Eric Funkhouser Committee Member Committee Member Abstract The contemporary free will debate is largely split into two camps, libertarianism and compatibilism. It is commonly assumed that if one is to affirm the existence of free will then she will find herself in one of these respective camps. Although merits can be found in each respective position, I find that neither account sufficiently for free will. This thesis, therefore, puts the view of Thomas Aquinas in dialogue with the contemporary debate and argues that his view cannot be captured by either libertarianism or compatibilism and that his view offers a promising alternative view that garners some of the strengths from both contemporary positions without taking on their respective shortcomings.
    [Show full text]
  • Locke (And Leibniz) on Free Action and Rationalism Vs. Empiricism
    DeRose Phil. 126 2/13/18 Locke (and Leibniz) on Free Action and Rationalism vs. Empiricism Libertarianism vs. Compatibilism and the (Philosophical) meaning of “free” -L, C and other options on a handy chart -So, what if determinism is/were true? The compatibilist’s easy response and the libertarian’s fallback position -An example-based account of the philosophical meaning of “free,” suitable for disputes between libertarians and compatibilists Locke on Liberty/Freedom and Necessity Book II, Chapter 21, starting sect. 7 (p. 20) -The question whether man’s will is free or not? is “unintelligible” (14). Why? Liberty is “a power in any agent to do or refrain any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind” (14); will is “a power, or ability, to prefer or choose” (17); Thus…“Liberty, which is but a power, belongs only to agents, and cannot be an attribute or modification of the will, which is also but a power” (14) -The real question, then, is whether the agent is free or at liberty (21), or, presumably, whether a particular action is freely performed (which can be understood as the question whether the agent was free in performing the action). And when is one free with respect to an action? Answer (at least early in the chapter): “That so far as anyone can, by the direction or choice of his mind preferring the existence of any action to the nonexistence of that action, and vice versa, make it exist or not exist, so far he is free” (21) -Locke’s account makes heavy use of conditionals (“if..., then....” statements): “For a man who sits still is said yet to be at liberty, because he can walk if he wills it.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 John Locke's Compatibilism: Suspension of Desire Or
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università degli Studi di Venezia Ca'... 6 John Locke’s Compatibilism: Suspension of Desire or Suspension of Determinism? Charles T. Wolfe Voluntary opposed to involuntary, not to necessary. —John Locke1 The common notion of liberty is false. —Anthony Collins2 Naturalistic theories of mind and action are typically considered to be recent arrivals on the philosophical scene, in contrast with theories that insist on a categorical separation between actions and events, such as agent causation, which is typically traced back to Aristotle, and can be found in medieval and early modern thinkers such as Francisco Suarez, Samuel Clarke, the Cambridge Platonists, Kant, and Reid, to name but a few. For example, Clarke declares, “When we say, in vulgar speech, that motives or reasons determine a man, ’tis nothing but a mere figure or metaphor. ’Tis the man, that freely determines himself to act.”3 The more naturalistically oriented species of theories tend to be associated with causal closure argu- ments derived from early twentieth-century physics, notably as mediated through the Vienna Circle. At most, some historical recognition will be given to Hobbes’s determinism and Hume’s compatibilism. In what follows I wish to show that an original form of compatibilism that acknowledges the complexity of mental life was presented by Locke and radicalized by his disciple Anthony Collins, in a way unlike either Hobbes before them or Hume after them. It may be hoped that a dose of conceptually motivated history of philosophy can have a place in contemporary discussions of action, whether it is as a presentation of possible “solutions,” unthought-of “problems,” or a rejection of the apparent simplicity of either.
    [Show full text]
  • Nöroetik Prensipler 5
    Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Sinir Bilim Dergisi No. 2018/1-2 B ö l ü m Nöroetik Prensipler 5 Etik ilkeler konusunda öneriler Etiksel kavramları daha somut boyuta getirerek prensiplerin ilkeleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. öroetik konusunda etiksel anlamda ilkeleşme, tüm insanı ve insanlığı kapsadığı için, tüm etik ilkeleri bünyesinde toplamaktadır. N Nöroetik olarak konunun yeniden gözden geçirilmesi ve ilkeleştirilmesi yukarıdaki kapsam altında gerekli olmadığı anlaşılacaktır. Ancak, olayın özetlenmesi açısından ilkelerde toparlamanın mümkün olabileceği varsayılmaktadır. Her bir yaklaşımda belirli esasların oluşturulması önceliklidir. Bir konu ele alınırken, o konuda bilgi sorgulaması öncesinde, belirli bir planın yapılması gerekir. Planlama olmadan rastgele alınan bilgiler, belirli bir bilgi kirliliğine neden olabilecektir. Birbiri ile çelişen durumlar ve bilgileri çözmek imkansızlaştığı gibi, belirli sorunlara da neden olabilecektir. Bu açıdan nöroetik kavramı üzerinde değinilmeden önce, bu konuda temel yaklaşımlar, belirli bir felsefe içinde ele alınmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Öncelikle konuyu ele alma biçimi, olayı yrumlama ve algılama düzeyi ortaya konulmalıdır. Bu amaçla nöroetik konusunda bir genel yaklaşım esasları oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır. Aşağıda bir ilkeleme çalışması görülecektir. Nöroetik Prensipler/İlkeler TANIMLAMALAR Etik Tıp Bilimi temelde insanı birey olarak ele almakta ve onun haklarının öncelikli olduğu ve otonomisinin her türlü durumda korunmasının hukuksal açıdan da ilke olarak ele alınması gerektiğinin bilincindedir. Sayfa. 252 Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Sinir Bilim Dergisi No. 2018/1-2 Birey, insan olmanın gerektiği modelinde, ruhsal, sosyal ve kültürel anlamda da toplumsal bir kişiliği olduğunun kavramı olarak da algılanmalıdır. Hekimlik mesleği, bireyin özerkliği ve kendi haklarını belirleme çerçevesinde, tıp biliminin uygulanması yanında sanatsal ve felsefe bilimler anlamında da bir bütünlüğü gerekli kılmaktadır. Tüm diğer özellikler hukuksal esaslar yanında etik ilkeler boyutunda da olmalıdır.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell
    The two Bell's theorems of John Bell Author Wiseman, HM Published 2014 Journal Title Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical Version Accepted Manuscript (AM) DOI https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424001 Copyright Statement © 2014 Institute of Physics Publishing. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/65174 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell H. M. Wiseman Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (Australian Research Council), Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia Abstract. Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of “Bell’s theorem” arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976. His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism. His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality. This is contrary to Bell’s own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name). While there are other forms of Bell’s theorems — which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, “fragile locality”, and EPR-completeness — I maintain that Bell’s two versions are the essential ones. Although the two Bell’s theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Compatibilist-Libertarianism
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 8-7-2018 A Critique of Compatibilist-Libertarianism Zachary Peck Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Recommended Citation Peck, Zachary, "A Critique of Compatibilist-Libertarianism." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/238 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CRITIQUE OF COMPATIBILIST-LIBERTARIANISM by ZACHARY PECK Under the Direction of Eddy Nahmias, PhD ABSTRACT Christian List has recently defended what he refers to as a compatibilist-libertarian theory of free will. He attempts to satisfy the libertarian requirement for alternative possibilities without assuming the falsity of physical determinism. To do so, List relies on a multi-level modal theory that he developed with Marcus Pivato. In this theory, List and Pivato demonstrate the compatibility of physical determinism and agential indeterminism. The success of compatibilist- libertarianism essentially hinges upon whether or not List and Pivato’s theory is truly consistent with a non-hypothetical conception of possibility. In this paper, I argue that, despite his attempt to distance himself from a standard compatibilist (i.e. hypothetical) conception of possibility, List remains committed to such a hypothetical conception. I also argue that List’s theory of agential causation is implausible given his modal interpretation of agency. Therefore, I conclude that compatibilist-libertarianism is an implausible theory of free will.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoria, 2020, 35(3), 345-364
    Theoria, 2020, 35(3), 345-364 https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.21302 T H E O R I A eISSN 0495-4548 – eISSN 2171-679X 1Free will and (in)determinism in the brain: a case for naturalized philosophy& (Libre albedrío e (in)determinismo en el cerebro: un problema para la filosofía naturalizada) Louis Vervoort*, Tomasz Blusiewicz University of Tyumen, Russian Federation ABSTRACT: In this article we study the question of free will from an interdisciplinary angle, drawing on philosophy, neu- robiology and physics. We start by reviewing relevant neurobiological findings on the functioning of the brain, notably as pre- sented in (Koch, 2009); we assess these against the physics of (in)determinism. These biophysics findings seem to indicate that neuronal processes are not quantum but classical in nature. We conclude from this that there is little support for the existence of an immaterial ‘mind’, capable of ruling over matter independently of the causal past. But what, then, can free will be? We propose a compatibilist account that resonates well with neurobiology and physics, and that highlights that free will comes in degrees — degrees which vary with the conscious grasp the ‘free’ agent has over his actions. Finally, we analyze the well-known Libet experiment on free will through the lens of our model. We submit this interdisciplinary investigation as a typical case of naturalized philosophy: in our theorizing we privilege assumptions that find evidence in science, but our conceptual work also suggests new avenues for research in a few scientific disciplines. KEYWORDS: free will; consciousness; compatibilism; neuroscience; determinism; Libet experiment; naturalized philoso- phy; quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will: Hail and Farewell
    Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism © 2019 The American Humanist Association volume 27 (2019), article 6, 98-124. ISSN 1522-7340 (print), 2052-8388 (online) Free Will: Hail and Farewell James A. Montanye Independent scholar, Falls Church, VA [email protected] This essay traces the evolution of the free will concept, from Plato to the present. It examines interpretations offered by theologians, political philosophers, philosophers of mind and consciousness, neuroscientists, evolutionists, legal scholars, and economists. The essay illuminates the concept’s instrumental use as an artifice for manipulating behavioral adaptations to the scarcity of economic resources. Macroeconomic and ngram data reveal these manipulations as having locked Western civilization into centuries of social and economic stagnation. Keywords: free will, consciousness, economics, prosperity, scarcity, competition, neuroscience, compatibilism, incompatibilism, ngrams “The persistence of the traditional free will problem in philosophy seems to me something of a scandal. After all these centuries of writing about free will, it does not seem to me that we have made very much progress.” John Searle (2007, 37) “A flood of ink has been spilled, especially in the modern era, on how to understand the concept of being able to do otherwise.” Timothy O’Connor (2016) “...the whole arcane issue about free will is a miscast concept, based on social and psychological beliefs held at particular times in human history that have not been borne out and/or are at odds with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of our universe.” Michael Gazzaniga (2011, 219) “...if we no longer entertain the luxury of a belief in the ‘magic of the soul,’ then there is little else to offer in support of the concept of free will.” Anthony Cashmore (2010, 1) [98] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • DICTIONARY of PHILOSOPHY This Page Intentionally Left Blank
    A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY This page intentionally left blank. A Dictionary of Philosophy Third edition A.R.Lacey Department of Philosophy, King’s College, University of London First published in 1976 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd Second edition 1986 Third edition 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © A.R.Lacey 1976, 1986, 1996 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Lacey, A.R. A dictionary of philosophy.—3rd edn. 1. Philosophy—Dictionaries I. Title 190′.3′21 B41 ISBN 0-203-19819-0 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-19822-0 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-13332-7 (Print Edition) Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available on request Preface to the first edition This book aims to give the layman or intending student a pocket encyclopaedia of philosophy, one with a bias towards explaining terminology. The latter task is not an easy one since philosophy is regularly concerned with concepts which are unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • Smilansky-Free-Will-Illusion.Pdf
    IV*—FREE WILL: FROM NATURE TO ILLUSION by Saul Smilansky ABSTRACT Sir Peter Strawson’s ‘Freedom and Resentment’ was a landmark in the philosophical understanding of the free will problem. Building upon it, I attempt to defend a novel position, which purports to provide, in outline, the next step forward. The position presented is based on the descriptively central and normatively crucial role of illusion in the issue of free will. Illusion, I claim, is the vital but neglected key to the free will problem. The proposed position, which may be called ‘Illusionism’, is shown to follow both from the strengths and from the weaknesses of Strawson’s position. We have to believe in free will to get along. C.P. Snow ir Peter Strawson’s ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (1982, first Spublished in 1962) was a landmark in the philosophical understanding of the free will problem. It has been widely influ- ential and subjected to penetrating criticism (e.g. Galen Strawson 1986 Ch.5, Watson 1987, Klein 1990 Ch.6, Russell 1995 Ch.5). Most commentators have seen it as a large step forward over previous positions, but as ultimately unsuccessful. This is where the discussion within this philosophical direction has apparently stopped, which is obviously unsatisfactory. I shall attempt to defend a novel position, which purports to provide, in outline, the next step forward. The position presented is based on the descriptively central and normatively crucial role of illusion in the issue of free will. Illusion, I claim, is the vital but neglected key to the free will problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesian Free Will, the Two-Stage Model of William James ______
    JAMESIAN FREE WILL, THE TWO-STAGE MODEL OF WILLIAM JAMES __________________________________________________________________ BOB DOYLE ABSTRACT Research into two-stage models of “free will” – first “free” random generation of alternative possibilities, followed by “willed” adequately determined decisions consistent with character, values, and desires – suggests that William James was in 1884 the first of a dozen philosophers and scientists to propose such a two-stage model for free will. We review the later work to establish James’s priority. By limiting chance to the generation of alternative possibilities, James was the first to overcome the standard two-part argument against free will, i.e., that the will is either determined or random. James gave it elements of both, to establish freedom but preserve responsibility. We show that James was influenced by Darwin’s model of natural selection, as were most recent thinkers with a two-stage model. In view of James’s famous decision to make his first act of freedom a choice to believe that his will is free, it is most fitting to celebrate James’s priority in the free will debates by naming the two-stage model – first chance, then choice -“Jamesian” free will. THE DECLINE OF DETERMINISM In the nineteenth century, according to historians of science1 and philosopher Ian Hacking2, there was a “rise in statistical thinking” and an “erosion of determinism.” The strict physical determinism implied by Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics was giving way to the statistical mechanics of physicists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, who assumed that gases were composed of atoms and molecules moving at random and following statistical laws.
    [Show full text]