The free wheelin', double dealin' argument against free will

Bad Blogs' Blood has partly evolved into the dumping ground for non-serious argumentation in addition to its role in memorializing mere bad blogs.  Some folks just don't get around to blogging but express their bad arguments in other ways.  Like YouTube:




Since I occasionally delve into philosophical and theological issues at my main blog, I published a brief entry on the above YouTube video at Sublime Bloviations.  But the person responsible for the video, dbes02, went to such hilarious lengths to defend his work that this, if anywhere, seemed like the place to memorialize the discussion.

I began:

With this format, why post something other than your best argument? The video sets up a false premise, that if multiple choices are not equally easy then they cannot be considered free. A simple thought experiment shows this is not the case. Suppose an identical set of circumstances where outcome A occurs 99 percent of the time and outcome ~A occurs 1 percent of the time. If ~A is more difficult it does not contradict free will in that case (or else it would never happen).

dbes02 answered:

Your thought experiment fails - it begs the question, because you assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes. But even talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will. So your challenge doesn't even get off the ground.

Note that dbes02 stipulated the existence of free will for the sake of argument ("If I had free will ...").  Therefore, his initial objection that it begs the question to "assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes" is obviously false.  But then he tries to layer the objection by supposing that merely "talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will."  But that objection suffers multiple flaws.  First, supposing that the same trial will result in 99% one result and 1% another result may just as well stem from past observational data rather than prediction, unless dbes02 is promoting the ridiculous notion that any statement of propositional truth about the future--even in merely hypothetical worlds--constitutes a prediction.  More on that later.  Second, the objection rests on an entirely different and controversial proposition, that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible.  It turns out that the YouTube argument rests on an unstated set of controversial premises.

The conversation continued:

lol
How do I supposedly beg the question?
Your argument appears to consistently boil down to your own fallacious begging of the question: You're assuming determinism every chance you get. Have a look at your argument from the YouTube video you posted. Do you see "determinism" either specific or implied in the argument? It's not there. But as soon as your argument is criticized it magically appears.

If all you can come up with are red herrings and flawed arguments, you have got nowhere. Even if identical circumstances led to the same outcome 99% of the time you have appealed to predictability and hence contradicted free will.

Please come up with something coherent - youtube is already treating you as spam!

Note that dbes02's response simply restates his (second) objection without addressing my reply, other than to imply with his opening if/then statement that I'm guilty of at least one red herring fallacy and/or at least one flawed argument.  What makes the argument flawed and/or a red herring?  Perhaps the fact that he insists that his objection is valid.  He drops his first objection in this response, perhaps realizing his mistake and declining to admit it.

It's neither a red herring nor a flawed argument to point out the *fact* that you did not include any presumption of determinism in your video argument. Playing "dial-a-fallacy" after you're caught posting a ridiculous question-begging argument is the red herring. Back to the drawing board with your argument, Champ.

Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make. But they aren’t. So are you going to actually show where the fallacy is instead of your chest beating? You're the one who raised determinism in your flawed thought experiment. Please present a coherent position. Your presence here is wearing thin.

Note again in dbes02's response that he does not address the point of attack.  He restates the premise of the YouTube argument in language almost suggesting that he thinks I expressed agreement with it ("Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make").  He follows that with a fallacy of the complex question, falsely assuming in his query that I did not specify the fallacy.  He then suggests that I raised determinism in the thought experiment, apparently based on the belief that probabilistic outcomes represent a particular prediction about the future--itself a baseless notion.

After this point, the conversation no longer appears in the company of dbes02's video, for he apparently exercised his prerogative in deleting subsequent comments.  However, he continued to reply to my posts, which left me a partial record of the exchanges via e-mail.  Before that behind-the-scenes look at the ensuing argument, however, have a look at a portion of dbes02's YouTube profile (in italics to distinguish it from the flow of the argument):

And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).

How dare those theists censor comments!  Though to be fair, dbes02 did himself no favors by leaving intact my three comments above.

Now on to the unpublicized part of the show:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your thought experiment was flawed, as shown before.
Clearly you haven't heard of a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Now run away little boy. You are out of your league here.

You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

Again, the same pattern:  dbes02 repeats original assertion without addressing the reply.  And perhaps he thinks I have never heard of reductio ad absurdum.   It's at least true that I detect from him no riposte that qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum.  Coming up with hidden premises like predictability entails determinism certainly doesn't count, even if we cut him a break on the erroneous assumption that probabilistic outcomes entail predictability.

Another round of the same:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your 99% ploy shows predictability - which contradicts free will. Now run away little boy if you don't have anything new to say.

You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

So, dbes02's original argument depends (at least in part) on an unstated premise that we must take as true:  Predictability entails determinism.

And note the (if/then) premise of the YouTube argument:

• If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.

After we scrape below the surface, it turns out that the premise contains as an unstated premise the idea that predictability entails determinism.  The only way free will could obtain under his premise is if outcomes were entirely random and not merely probabilistic.  And dbest02's justification for his premise in answer to my objection was essentially to restate the premise as its own justification--in other words circulus in demonstrando--the circular argument.