Oscar Galeana

Ways of Knowing
5/26/2016
Critical Analysis: Science vs. Free will

Their is No Free Will

For this paper I will analyze the two sides from the science reduces the probability of free
will debate. The twos sides of this debate, the pro and con team, had both good evidence that
supported their argument. The pro side argued that In order for free will to exist in the world,
there cannot be determinism. There is determinism in the world, therefore, free will does
not exist. Meaning that the world is run by predetermined events that will decide the choices of
an individual and no choice made by an individual is truly their own. While the con side argued
that free will exists whether or not we live in a determinist universe. They explained that
even if the world is run by predetermined events individuals still have free will. I argue that the
pro side presented a better argument against free will due to their examples of cause and effect,
the laws of physics and predetermined thoughts.

Pro:
Claim: Their is determinism in the world

Premise 1: Our choices are caused by previous events

Premise 2: Our thoughts are predetermined

Premise 3: The universe does abide by the Laws of Physics.

The first premise from the pro side was that our choices are caused by previous events,
meaning that their is a cause and effect format in the world. They keeped stating that an
individual would not make a choice if they were not forced to. Giving the example If you choose
to remain indoors because youre in the grip of a panic attack at the thought of going outside,
then your choice isnt free. This is a great example that basically shows how an everyday scene
or choice is not really choice. This premise was strong and clear, because it helped their
argument about free will and how their is none in the world.
The second premise of the pro side was that our thoughts are predetermined. They went
on to say that a decision does not occur as a first reaction, but rather as a result of predetermined
criteria for a specific decision. They used the example of a study where individuals where asked
to press a button when they felt the urge to, the conscious decision to press the button was
preceded by a few hundred milliseconds by negative brain potential, since activity in the SMA
continually preceded the conscious decision, this argues that thoughts are predetermined. This
was a strong example of why their sciences reduces the probability of free will, because they
actually found a scientific study that proved their argument to be correct. Not just a hunch but
actually findings and data.
Lastly their third premise was that the universe abides by the laws of physics. Thier logic
for this was that the laws of physics helps to determine why things happen and to predict what
happens next, so if the world follows the laws of physics and follows this pattern of
predetermining events, then the world is deterministic, therefore our choices are deterministic.
This example might not have been a testable study but it is strong and logically it makes since. If
the universe follows these laws that follows predetermined events and we can test and have been

tested to be true then everything that happens is because of predetermined events meaning that
an individual choices are decided by predetermined events and not by their free will.

Con:
Claim: Free will exists whether or not we live in a determinist universe.
Premise 1:Determinism is refuted by the Heisenberg Principle, proving you cant use quantum
mechanics to accurately predict everything.
Premise 2: Based on the compatibilist free will, the existence of determinism does not rule out
the possibility of free will.

The cons side first premise regarding the heisenberg principle seems logical. They stated
that their is always going to be an uncertainty about the amount of events science can predict.
Therefore science cant be totally predict everything and therefore some choices and events are
due to free will. This is not a strong argument because even though science isnt entirely sure
about what will happen next does not mean that the action was not caused by a previous event.
Their second premise the con side talked about compatibilism stating that free will exists
when we make decisions uninfluenced by ignorance, intimidation, or suppression. This argument
seems logical but it is weak because even though some decisions are made by ignorance there is
still a reason of they made that choice or had to make that choice. When asked about difference
between when a decision based on determinism and when a decision is based on free will, the
con side could not answer, that was a big part of what made their presentation weak, because
they are arguing that free will exists whether or not there's determinism in the world, but they
cant identify the difference between the two.

Through their examples of the cause and effect, the laws of physics, and an individual's
thoughts being predetermined the pro side had a stronger argument of why science reduces the
probability of free will.

Word Count: 853