the trend in Science has been the elimination of free will. It
makes sense when you think about it; from the point of view of
Science, Free Will simply can't be measured. Science works from
the "outside-in" and doesn't deal with things that are
Subjective or "inside-out".
Working from an outside-in perspective, it's unlikely that
science will be able to find Free Will. Yet, even if the
chain-of-events involved in decision-making is entirely mapped
out, it doesn't answer the question of consciousness.
One of the dangers that some Scientists can fall into is called
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism - a belief that
Science has all of the answers, basically, even in areas that
are outside of its scope. It makes sense that scientists might
inadvertently express opinions like this, because that is the
field they work in.
We tend to see the world through the lens which we're familiar.
That doesn't mean that they might not be wrong; they may be
right; But generally, in the sciences, free will is typically a
question outside of its scope. Cognitive Science can run a
danger if it gets involved too heavily in the Court System,
because in the courts, the Standard Candle is the concept of the
mythological, "Reasonable Person"; the idea that people's
actions can be judged against what a reasonable person might do
in a similar circumstance.
But if Free Will is eliminated, then there's no crime, but only
scientific rationalizations.
There would be no crime, because there would no longer be such a
thing as a "reasonable person" - that is, a person who reasons.
The reasoning would be entirely scientifically explained and
_not_ coming freely from one's self. It thereby could equally
well be done by a computer, for example, if that were the case.
That could be a dangerous direction for society to go in.
Remaining neutral as much as is possible is key. It's just that
- I've noticed a ramping up of the "elimination of Free Will"
via explanations in Science. In criminal cases, many actions are
excused due to brain damage for example.* "They weren't rational
at the time of the crime". The trouble is: If it's entirely
accepted that "Humans do not have Free Will" and are controlled
solely through external forces beyond our direct control...
...then there can be no crime. There would be no need for
juries, because none of them would have Free Will to think
through the issues at hand. The ultimate arbitrator could end up
being a series of computers and the ones who control the fates
of those who committed the criminal acts would be those who
direct the programmers to write the programs to decide our
fates. Yet.. even if that case, the one directing the
programming of the computers would also have no Free Will. It
sounds extreme, and I'm not anti-science by any means. But it's
a danger to watch out for. A good thing is a good thing when
applied correctly.* When over applied, well, it can spell
trouble.* Thankfully, I trust that it will never come to that,
because there will always be people out there who will say, "No
Free Will?* A computer deciding instead of humans?* You nuts!?"
So I'm not really that worried. It's just that, it's easy to
fall into complacency , of someone saying, "Trust Us, we have
the answers.* Rest easy and we'll take care of everything."
Questioning is always a good thing.* Even ridiculous questions,
in my opinion, should be free to be aired.
References
Visible links
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
