Ao
longo do ano há pouco terminado, o Edge.org
colocou à discussão a questão What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Jerry Coyne apontou como
resposta a ideia de livre-arbítrio:
Não, não poderíamos tê-la pedido
“When pressed, nearly all scientists and most philosophers admit this. Determinism and materialism, they agree, win the day. But they're remarkably quiet about it. Instead of spreading the important scientific message that our behaviors are the deterministic results of a physical process, they'd rather invent new "compatibilist" versions of free will: versions that comport with determinism. "Well, when we order strawberry ice cream we reallycouldn'thave ordered vanilla", they say, "but westill have free will in another sense. And it's the only sense that's important."” Duvido que o sentido compatibilista de “livre-arbítrio” seja o único que é importante… ou sequer que importe significativamente. Depois, no meu esc…
Não, não poderíamos tê-la pedido
“When pressed, nearly all scientists and most philosophers admit this. Determinism and materialism, they agree, win the day. But they're remarkably quiet about it. Instead of spreading the important scientific message that our behaviors are the deterministic results of a physical process, they'd rather invent new "compatibilist" versions of free will: versions that comport with determinism. "Well, when we order strawberry ice cream we reallycouldn'thave ordered vanilla", they say, "but westill have free will in another sense. And it's the only sense that's important."” Duvido que o sentido compatibilista de “livre-arbítrio” seja o único que é importante… ou sequer que importe significativamente. Depois, no meu esc…