This I don't get. To have choice, I must have had the ability to have done otherwise in any given situation. By definition, if determinism holds, then I could not have done other than what the past dictated. So, they do seem mutually exclusive.Eduk wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 2:41 pmNo. That's what I was trying to say (poorly). I don't think determinism and choice are necessarily mutually exclusive. For example we really need to delve deep into exactly what choice or freedom are. For example can I choose not to be free?If I can choose, then determinism is out, right?
I can not literally choose to not be free, yet many people effectively do through a false belief that they can not change their poor habit. Every addict, for example, can get clean any time they decide to exert their will. It may be hard, so they convince themselves they can't win and don't try. In a sense, they are choosing not to be free.
You need some Rousseau! It is absolutely possible to be rational, yet wrong. You have to avoid the anachronism of picturing yourself as that man of the past, who would lack much of the knowledge and resources that Eduk of the present has at his disposal. Looking up at the sky, unable to perceive the motion of the earth, it would be perfectly rational to note the apparent motion of the sun around the earth and take it at face value. There was every reason to think the sun went around the earth and no reason to think otherwise. Plato and Aristotle were not nuts; they just lacked all the information to come to the correct conclusion. What they did conclude was perfectly logical given what they did know.Eduk wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 2:41 pmNot really. There are some nuances to this. Firstly take medicine. Blood letting used to be called medicine. This is before medicine took a science based approach. Modern medicine didn't happen until around 1900. So there is a big big difference between a law which claims to be scientific and a law which is scientific. Regarding laws which are scientific see my comment about Newton for further nuance on that.They had many 'laws' in the past which were proven incorrect,Yes it was. If there is no reason to believe something then it is irrational to believe it.It was not irrational to assume that the sun revolved around the earth, for example.
There is always a chance that you are falling into a similar trap, because our knowledge is always incomplete. In areas where we have extremely little knowledge, like the nature of consciousness and freedom, agnosticism is a rational approach. It's also fine if you choose to have an opinion of what you think will be the answer when (if) we are able to get the facts. It's the attitude of certainty in areas of great unknowns that seems irrational.
Then why do you want to convince us, or yourself, that you do know?