Free Will discussion

I think applying science to philosophical questions is a great way to advance philosophy. What do you think?

What about applying philosophical questions to science, human knowledge and how it is generated as a way of advancing science?

I don't think the big questions generally considered philosophy lend themselves to advancing science. But many scientists think about the philosophical implications of science.
It seems to be a one-way street in my opinion.
Have you read Sam Harris's 'Free Will'?

Given our knowledge of physics, the philosophical implication with regards to humans is that our every thought and action is determined by the world outside ourselves. No autonomy.

Conceptual hierarchy is: ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, tools and techniques. What is commonly defined as a particular scientific field operates at the level of methodology and methods. Philosophy is concerned with the ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin the practice of science as well implications of scientific practice. In this way, philosophy advances science by questioning assumptions around validity and generalisability of findings, by describing the challenges of objectivity and subject-object duality, and by establishing the theoretical frameworks for translation of scientific findings into complex real-life scenarios. Philosophy lays out the foundations for corroboration and refutation of theories, which serves as the core self-correcting mechanism by which or body of scientific knowledge continues to advance.
Happy to discuss how science advances philosophy.

Yes, I have taken two 'Philosophy of Science' courses and I agree there is some contribution to scientific method. But I think it has come from scientists thinking about what they are doing, rather than from philosophers.
In the early days, just after the dark ages, people like Francis Bacon did both philosophy and science mixed together.

I agree that philosophy of science has been greatly advanced by scientists themselves. I know that philosophy exists as a profession in its own right, but I've always thought of it more as a thinking skill (like critical thinking) that is useful to professionals across a range of fields for self-awareness, questioning of assumptions, awareness of boundary judgements, etc.

Yes, I agree, Khira. The same analytic ability is used in philosophy and science.

I'd like to learn a bit more about your suggestion of applying science to advance philosophy - not from a point of opposition to the argument, but out of curiosity to learn a bit more about specific examples that caused you to make the suggestion.

I studied physics, and understanding the core concepts made me realize that everything in the macro world depends on the atomic world. This led me to the idea that the macro world is what is going on fundamentally, and we are puppets governed by the atomic world. Hence, it changed or deepened my world view.
I do not believe in any large 'E' emergent properties, only small 'e' emergence. Nothing is added in emergence, everything is reduceable to physics. This is my philosophy....

Human consciousness strikes me as a large 'E' emergence

You might enjoy this, Khira.

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm...

There is a branch of Philosophy that takes it cues from science, the scientific method and the rigorous definition of what accounts for evidence.

It's called naturalism. Although philosophical pursuits that venture outside of science are interesting and edifying, sometimes entertaining, mostly they seem empty of meaning, though not without value.

Sam Harris' discussion of Free Will, though not uniquely his own by a long shot, it is certainly the most accessible and devastating argument against advocates of liberal Santa clause versions of free will and compatibilism as well. It's kind of a mic drop moment. Stunning. Stumping to major modern philosophers to this day. Dan Dennett's fumbling responses in particular reveal a philosopher in mental decline, desperately holding onto his ego the way Charlton Heston holds on to guns: Take my free will from my cold dead hands, Dennett seems to echo.

There are very disturbing conclusions to be drawn from what should have been the final blow to the existence and lack of evidence for free will of any sort, but it's largely ignored.

The fact that a modern society cannot cope with the conclusions that must be confronted by the truth of this book, or at least the fact that it is surely more likely true than not and surely the best most damning analysis to date of the topic causes me some despair. It should receive similar fanfare to Nietzsche's "God is Dead" declaration. Free will is Dead my friends, finally, and thankfully.

The greatest truths will always be hidden for the advancement of Oligarchy or Aristocracy, or simply the maintenance of justifiable slave classes of people. Perpetuating free will as reality continues to subjugate everyone and is the most power social mind control in the history of the human race.

Love and agree with everything you said, Tony, except for the last paragraph - doesn't seem to fit with the well-reasoned rest of your entry.

Fortunately, even without free will, humans are social creatures and tend to the 'good' side of neutral.