A philosopher who promotes critical thinking

Here is an audio excerpt of the "Critical Thinking Crash Course" presentation by Dr. Peter Boghossian to the Agnostics and Atheists at Intel on May 11 of last year. Peter Boghossian's blunt criticism of faith based reasoning while working as a professor of philosophy at Portland State University has sometimes been deemed to be too judgmental to comply with academic norms by some of his peers at PSU. But Peter Boghossian recognizes that knowledge cannot be divorced from judgement and he is not deterred. He presses on with his "street epistmology" of trying to encourage critical thinking among his students and any audience that will finance his travel ($1500).

“I’m advocating that there are certain processes that will more closely help [people] to align their beliefs with reality; faith is an unreliable process. It will not help you come to reliable conclusions. It will decrease the possibility you come to that,” Boghossian says. He says of his critics: "“Here’s what they don’t understand: Ideas do not require dignity. People require dignity. There’s a difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. Attacks on faith are not like attacks on race." We need more advocates of critical thinking like Peter Boghossian. Critical thinking requires restraint and discipline, it is about applying constraints. But many people prefer to be free of such constraints and just believe according to their fancy, so it needs to be taught and learned.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Morality not dependent on behavior being unpredictable

In the monthly WASH bulletin there is another article on free will titled "Free will and Hell" written by he coordinator of the Baltimore chapter. As before, it describes Daniel Dennett's perspectives as he discussed them at John Hopkins University. I will spare the readers a discussion of every one of my disagreements and agreements with that article in detail. Instead I will briefly comment on the start of the third paragraph which follows:

"A concept of free will is necessary for morality because no individual can predict exactly what another will do. Many human actions are based on internal motivations or patterns of neurons that can't be observed. The actions appear random to anyone who doesn't know the person. The behavior is not free in the sense of being undetermined by physical causes, but it is free in the sense of being unpredictable by a casual observer."

We are free provided that we are not compelled to act according to someone else's dictate. This distinction between self-originating action and actions that are intended to comply with a behavioral demand of someone else is important. Even to the extent our behavior may be predictable it is still free provided it is an action that is self-selected. It is not true that we are free because our actions are not predictable.

Anything that is complex can be difficult to predict, not necessarily because it isn't predictable in principle, but because we would need to know about many physical properties and interactions that would require technology that we don't have. Also, the process of measuring things on the small scale can disturb the activity that is being measured. Predictability tends to diminish with time, so even with future technology we may be able to predict a given behavioral choice only a second or less in advance. That future is almost here as neuroscientists have demonstrated that they can translate information obtained from monitoring neurons into behavioral predictions, albeit in restricted contexts and without complete accuracy. But even to the extent that we could reliably predict behaviors, those predicted behaviors would still be free behaviors.

I also disagree that behaviors being unpredictable equates with free will or that either is necessary for morality. Free will is about minds having agency that is free from materialistic cause and effect constraints. Morality is about actions or inactions that harm or constrain people and our environment. They are different concepts and morality is not dependent on behaviors being unpredictable.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket