Added: 4 years ago
From: dawgie102
Views: 191
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (5)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Comment removed

  • The problem is that many answers show that most moderns do not understand the distiction between philosophy and physical science. They do not understand phys. science's limits. Physical science can't solve the problems of free will and determinism. Skinner makes gratuitious assertions, and what is gratuitously asserted, may be gratuitiously denied.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • The view being attacked in this piece is epiphenomenalism, the position that experience is an effect but never a cause. It's a view that I, a determinist, don't hold.

    So what's the connection to determinism? Why is this "Margie Refutes Determinism" and not "Margie Argues The Implausibility Of Epiphenomenalism"? Do you have some reason to believe that determinism requires it?

  • Fallacious reasoning; see my response to this argument in 'char refutes determinism'.

  • it is actually "argumentum ad absurdum" (If my Latin spelling is right. Skinner, and many others, don't know that their theory leads to nonsense, as said above. Also.. Thanks for the comments.

  • I listened, and it was clear.

  • Huh?

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more