Which side shoulders the burden of proof?

https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1f7ldkf/which_side_shoulders_the_burden_of_proof/

created by diogenesthehopeful on 02/09/2024 at 23:35 UTC

7 upvotes, 22 top-level comments (showing 22)

1. Both?

2. free will proponent?

3. free will denier?

4. neither?

I'm seeking arguments instead of votes

Comments

Comment by Powerful-Garage6316 at 03/09/2024 at 11:40 UTC

5 upvotes, 1 direct replies

I mean whoever is making a claim in a debate is who holds the burden. This applies to both sides

This topic is prone to all sorts of semantical issues. Both sides need to make clear what *they* mean by “free will” and then provide an argument or evidence that their definition is something that actually exists.

But to give examples, a libertarian holds a burden when they suggest that choices are not caused by the physical brain, and the determinist holds a burden when they claim that all physical events are causally determined

Comment by mdog73 at 03/09/2024 at 12:06 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

The outcome is the same, so it doesn’t really matter. I feel no requirement to prove that free will doesn’t exist.

Comment by Rthadcarr1956 at 02/09/2024 at 23:55 UTC

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I think anyone with an opinion on the matter should be able to say why they hold that view. All evidence should count, but better evidence should win out over weaker evidence. The subjective feeling of making a free will decision counts, but not much. A hasty generalization, like all of physics is deterministic so free will is impossible, should not be very persuasive either. You are never going to persuade people with deductive logic without first having everyone agree on all of the premises.

I believe that the best arguments will come from biology/neuroscience. In this respect we need to have mechanistic understanding of both the behavioral aspects as well as support from the mechanisms of neuronal activity in the brain that instantiates the behavior.

I think the libertarians including Kevin Mitchell and Peter Tse are further ahead in this than many lay people recognize. Each have a recent book giving good positive evidence for free will.

Comment by LokiJesus at 03/09/2024 at 01:02 UTC

3 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Burden of proof is a power play. You have two people who believe two different things. There is no burden of proof. If, however, you *wish* to convince others of your position, the work is there for you to build a bridge. You then do have work to do to achieve your goal of convincing others of your position.

Don't get trapped in the fallacy of the burden of proof. Get to finding creative ways to teach.

Comment by [deleted] at 03/09/2024 at 00:16 UTC*

3 upvotes, 5 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by [deleted] at 03/09/2024 at 06:00 UTC

2 upvotes, 3 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by Training-Promotion71 at 03/09/2024 at 14:30 UTC

0 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Deniers. To deny any of the most immediate experiences(consciousness, freedom of the will, emotions, thoughts etc.) is retarded, dishonest, senseless, stupid and totally ridiculous. People who deny free will are bunch of idiots. Now, for the sake of philosophy, the best they can do is to admit we have these experiences, and then propose a Cartesian scenario. In other words, we are all deluded that our experiences are real. But we know that such position is escapistic and notoriously untenable. Also, deniers are latent anti-scientific bunch. They hurry to explain away things that require an explanation, if explanation is within the range of our intellectual means. Nevertheless, I propose a preliminary IQ test as following: If the question is "Do we have free will?", and the subject answers "No", his IQ is either zero, or else he's joking.

Comment by GameKyuubi at 03/09/2024 at 04:57 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Neither. Right now we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Libertarian Free Will exists or doesn't exist, and Compatibilist Free Will seems like a tautologically true nothingburger that doesn't actually tell us anything important.

Comment by vkbd at 03/09/2024 at 18:06 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

4. Neither has to shoulder the burden of proof.

Firstly, free will has no agreed upon definition. You cannot prove something you can't define. Even if you just look at this sub, there is no consensus.

Secondly, even if you pick a definition, it's not provable. Just looking at the definitions provided by the redditors of this sub, there is no definition that is provable to any satisfaction to the opposing side.

Lastly, proof of free will may be irrelevant. For some people, free will is simply a means to an end, which is the kind of morality you want, or don't want. So for some debates, proving or disproving free will becomes a waste of time, as they will simply change the definition of free will to invalidate the proof.

Comment by steve_dallas2015 at 04/09/2024 at 10:27 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Broadly speaking, we usually push the burden of proof onto the group whose position has a more profound impact.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the government to prove you commit a crime largely because most people don’t want to send an innocent person to prison or execution. I know there are countless failures but the principle assigns the burden in one direction for good reason.

In society, free will is assumed and is the basis for for virtually everything including our economy and criminal justice system. Given the implications of determinism, the burden falls on the determinist. If someone is not responsible for their actions, criminal justice falls apart along with most other things.

A scientific level of proof would in fact not be adequate. It would need to be greater given the massive implications.

Comment by Henry_Pussycat at 04/09/2024 at 18:35 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Given that throwing responsibility away would be the change, the burden is on the determinists.

Comment by mildmys at 03/09/2024 at 00:49 UTC*

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Burden of proof is on the claimant saying free will exists.

Just like in court, we are innocent of having free will until proven guilty of having it.

Comment by The_0therLeft at 03/09/2024 at 03:25 UTC

1 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Free will advocates; they have yet to provide its inner workings, just a lot of special pleading. We've already accepted that our experience is very different from reality, people just get touchy when they don't get to be the precious baby boy of the entire universe.

Comment by [deleted] at 03/09/2024 at 12:44 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

There are many "sides." Of course the people who claim "free will" exists have the burden to produce evidence that it does. There are a nearly infinite number of things that do not happen.

Comment by Ninja_Finga_9 at 03/09/2024 at 00:14 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

The one making the claim for the existence of something or the non-existence of something. You claim it, you back it up.

Comment by twilsonco at 03/09/2024 at 02:42 UTC

1 upvotes, 3 direct replies

The person presuming its existence to hold people accountable for actions that are entirely predictable based on their circumstances. Eg hungry people steal food; well-fed people don't.

Also the person asserting it suddenly pops into existence when you turn 18 (or pick an age). I don't see anyone claiming babies are choosing their actions and should be held accountable for them, but after a certain number of days alive that switches. Anyone arguing for that position needs to clearly explain the mechanism by which they didn't have free will one day earlier and shouldn't have been held accountable back to day one.

What empirical measurement can we make to determine the age at which free will starts?

Comment by MarvinBEdwards01 at 03/09/2024 at 04:22 UTC

0 upvotes, 1 direct replies

The truth is rather obvious. We observe reliable cause and effect in everything we think and do, and determinism is nothing more than the reasonable assumption that everything that happens is caused to happen by whatever is happening right now. We also observe ourselves and others making choices for themselves every day. So, free will and reliable causation are proven all the time by anyone who has eyes.

Comment by ughaibu at 03/09/2024 at 08:25 UTC

0 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Any free will denier who expects to be taken at all seriously will admit that there is, at least, an incorrigible illusion of free will. In other words, both affirmers and deniers experience a world in which there unambiguously appears to be free will.

Obviously the burden is on the denier. After all, how could the affirmer argue that things are as they appear to be? That's exactly what appearing to be already establishes!

Comment by spgrk at 03/09/2024 at 00:11 UTC

-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

The main component of the debate is not proving that your definition of free will is consistent with reality, it is justifying it as a definition. So I would say the "burden of proof" does not fall on one side more than the other.

Comment by [deleted] at 03/09/2024 at 02:51 UTC

-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by Squierrel at 03/09/2024 at 07:05 UTC

0 upvotes, 1 direct replies

4. Neither. There is no burden of proof. Free will is not something you could prove or disprove.

Some people give the name *free will* to something real. Some people give the name *free will* to something imaginary. Both groups are equally right, no-one has to prove anything.

The only group of people on the wrong track are those who require proof. They have not properly defined what free will means to them.

Comment by BasedTakes0nly at 03/09/2024 at 15:30 UTC

0 upvotes, 1 direct replies

What would be acceptable proof for either side?

I think there will never be 100% concrete proof of one side or the other.

But I think there is more evidence on the determinsm side, and will likely end up being in a same position as the big bang theory. Where we can't know for sure, but all evidence points to it being true. Free will has vitrually no evidence.