Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild? — creativesoul
I believe that you are referring to the joke. It's separated topic and you will find some of my answers there. So, please comment there... — Damir Ibrisimovic
I need a bit more to agree to disagree or agree on the existence of free will - without qualifiers... — Damir Ibrisimovic
The joke presupposes exactly what is at issue. One cannot give away something they've never had. Poor language use doesn't make a good argument. Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about giving up on the idea or giving up the belief in free will. — creativesoul
The scenarios of the joke are simple enough to test it in a cafe with a friend. Since we can assume that enough people tested the scenarios from 22 May 2011 - we can start to talk about it as a theory — Damir Ibrisimovic
Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild?
The joke is a bit ironic... — creativesoul
The proposal is "Free Will exists" and it's not new. With enough tests, the proposal is promoted into theory. What is new are scenarios to test the new theory. :)
I'm not really interested to judge the capacity of other people to recognise pure reasoning... — Damir Ibrisimovic
A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.