The Beauty Of Determinism!

[Jichard]

How on earth does Jerky Butt's link undermine the paper I linked?

Is Jesus proud of you for the silly nicknames you make up for people? A true display of Christ-like love.

And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself.

No, you quote-mined the paper, and have continued to dishonestly do so even after your quote-mines were pointed out.

The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

The abstract is perfectly clear:

Nowhere does that paper say that when people believe in determinism they are less moral. That's just a stupid lie that you made up to smear determinists. Same old dishonest quote-mines of scientific research you haven't read. Sad, but expected.

You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human
[it seems that the authors are presuming that this conjunction entails the denial of free will, since the authors are presuming that the study participants will think the biological description in question is a deterministic description]

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

That's made quite clear in the study. For example:

"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long

"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-willFor experiment 2:]

In the free-willdeterminism

So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers].

[Jichard]

It's blatantly obvious what seer's up to and he doesn't realize that, by misrepresenting the arguments he quote-mines, he's actually harming his own cause and bringing it into contempt.

He doesn't seem to care. He keeps pretending that the paper says that people who believe in determinism are less moral, even though the paper shows no such thing and this has been explained to him. He just misrepresents and quote-mines, without caring about fairly representing the research.

You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human
[it seems that the authors are presuming that this conjunction entails the denial of free will, since the authors are presuming that the study participants will think the biological description in question is a deterministic description]

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

That's made quite clear in the study. For example:

"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long

"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-willFor experiment 2:]

In the free-willdeterminism

So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers].

I particularly found this quote from your link in #37 of interest:

"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately" (130). My emphasis.

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"

http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ka...2028201329.pdf

Prepare for him to ignore that.

[Jichard]

Jim, Jerky Butt is fibbing again:

Is Jesus proud of you for your silly insults?

From the study:

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In two experiments, we found that weakening free-will beliefs
reliably increased cheating. We measured cheating in Experiment
1 using a passive cheating opportunity. To avoid cheating,
participants had to actively prevent the answer to an arithmetic
problem from appearing on the computer screen. This scenario
is perhaps akin to accidentally receiving too much change from a
store clerk but not returning the extra money. In Experiment 2,
we measured active cheating. We found that when participants
were allowed to pay themselves for each correct answer on a
difficult cognitive test, those who read statements promoting
a deterministic worldview paid themselves more (in effect,
claimed to have answered more items correctly) than did those
who read other kinds of statements; moreover, participants who
read deterministic statements and who paid themselves gave
themselves more money than was earned by participants who
were paid for their true performance...

...The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is
no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active
cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic
worldview could undermine moral behaviorThe present findings raise the genuine concern that widespread
encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have
the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior.
Consistent with this view are recent trends suggesting both a
decrease in beliefs in personal control and an increase in
cheating.

Your usual dishonest quote-mining. Nowhere in there does the paper support your claims that:

"And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral."

"And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period."

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.

How many times does this need to be explained to you? Seriously, stop the dishonest quote-mining.

You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human
[it seems that the authors are presuming that this conjunction entails the denial of free will, since the authors are presuming that the study participants will think the biological description in question is a deterministic description]

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

That's made quite clear in the study. For example:

"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long

"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-willFor experiment 2:]

In the free-willdeterminism

So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers].

[Tassman]

How on earth does Jerky Butt's link undermine the paper I linked? And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

The abstract is perfectly clear:

What "people believe" may affect their behaviour but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth. E.g. children can be made to restrain bad behaviour if they believe they'll be punished by the Bogeyman, but this is not evidence that such an entity exists.

Thus, even if you'd interpreted your quote-mine correctly, and Jichard has demonstrated that you haven't, it would make no difference to the fact of causal determinism nor validate the existence of libertarian free-will.

[seer]

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.

How many times does this need to be explained to you? Seriously, stop the dishonest quote-mining.

OK Jicard, from the general discussion:

The present findings raise the genuine concern that widespread
encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have
the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior.
Consistent with this view are recent trends suggesting both a
decrease in beliefs in personal control and an increase in
cheating.


If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood
of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating
the public against this danger becomes imperative. Ultimately,
in order to oppose the unfavorable consequences of deterministic
sentimentshttp://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

OK Jichard, instead of going on one of your rants and overwhelming everyone with unnecessary verbiage, which is your debating style, just tell me what these mean:

the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

[seer]

What "people believe" may affect their behaviour but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth. E.g. children can be made to restrain bad behaviour if they believe they'll be punished by the Bogeyman, but this is not evidence that such an entity exists.

Thus, even if you'd interpreted your quote-mine correctly, and Jichard has demonstrated that you haven't, it would make no difference to the fact of causal determinism nor validate the existence of libertarian free-will.

I misrepresented nothing Tass, the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong.

[Tassman]

I misrepresented nothing Tass, the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy!

[seer]

Bald Assertion Fallacy!

Well look at my last post to Jichard and tell me exactly where I am off. Where did I misrepresent the paper in the OP, as Jichard claimed?

[Tassman]

Well look at my last post to Jichard and tell me exactly where I am off. Where did I misrepresent the paper in the OP, as Jichard claimed?

Jichard, as usual, explained his objection perfectly clearly and for your to respond with a glib "the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong", is disingenuous.

[seer]

Jichard, as usual, explained his objection perfectly clearly and for your to respond with a glib "the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong", is disingenuous.

Wrong Tass, Jichard said that the authors of the paper I linked were not speaking of believing in determinism, yet they were, and I quoted them saying exactly that. Are you really this bias bro? Read it for yourself:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post254153

[The Pixie]

seer, the reason Jichard considers you dishonest is that determinism does not imply no free will. The paper is considering the morality of people who think there is no free will. The truth is that you can have determinism AND free will. Jichard pointed this out to you in post #4.

"Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:"

That you chose to ignore that is the reason Jichard considers you to be dishonestly misrepresenting the article. I can see his point.

[seer]

seer, the reason Jichard considers you dishonest is that determinism does not imply no free will. The paper is considering the morality of people who think there is no free will. The truth is that you can have determinism AND free will. Jichard pointed this out to you in post #4.

"Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:"

That you chose to ignore that is the reason Jichard considers you to be dishonestly misrepresenting the article. I can see his point.

Nonsense, Jichard said this:

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

And this is false, the paper specifically points to belief in determinism:

the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

And where in the paper did they discuss compatibilism? Why am I accused of ignoring that when it was not even discussed Pixie!?!?!?

[The Pixie]

Nonsense, Jichard said this:

And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

And where in the paper did they discuss compatibilism? Why am I accused of ignoring that when it was not even discussed Pixie!?!?!?

You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

[seer]

And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

Talk about dishonest Pixie. Jichard was wrong about what the authors in my linked paper claimed. They were speaking of determinism, not just the lack of belief in free will as Jichard said. And where in the original paper do they deal with compatibalism? BE SPECIFIC PLEASE. And this is not my argument it is the argument of the researchers. As far as if determinism and free will are compatible that depends on how you define free will. Determinism is not compatible with libertarian free will.


Here is my original link - where do they speak of compatibalism: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

[Tassman]

And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

It's called 'denial', i.e. (in psychology): "An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings." - The Free Dictionary.