Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:39:09.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Analytical Approaches to Determinism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Douglas Odegard
Affiliation:
University of Guelph

Extract

Determinism in one sense is the theory that all events, including human actions, are governed by laws and hence are necessary. Some think that it can be refuted simply by identifying entrenched beliefs that contradict it, i.e., simply by establishing incompatibilism. Others think that this is not enough, that if determinists uncover the right sort of evidence, they can use that evidence against any contrary beliefs, however well entrenched. In that case, attention must be paid to contingent facts about human behaviour. Probably a combination of the two approaches is the best strategy. Obviously, ascertaining what the facts are, and what their relevance is, cannot be done independently of analysis and logic. Yet a concentration on incompatibilism seems particularly vulnerable to stalemate. Hence the need arises to investigate whether concepts formed during the analytical inquiry are actually true of anything, independently of questions of entrenchment. To confirm this suspicion about the limitations of analysis, I shall consider two perceptive and well-regarded arguments for thinking that determinism clashes with a belief in alternate possibilities.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Chisholm, Roderick, “J. L. Austin's Philosophical Papers”, Mind 73 (1964). 2025Google Scholar.

2 Lehrer, Keith, “An Empirical Disproof of Determinism”, in Lehrer, Keith, ed., Freedom and Determinism (New York: Random House. 1966), 175202.Google Scholar For a discussion that provides another example of how high the risk of stalemate is. see Anne, Bruce. “Hypotheticals and 'Can': Another Look”. Analysis 27 (1967), 191195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lehrer, Keith, “Cans Without Its”, Analysis 29 (1968). 2932CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Inwagen, Peter Van, “The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism”, Philosophical Studies 27 (1975), 185199CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Foley, Richard, “Compatibilism and Control Over the Past”. Analysis 39 (1979). 7074CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See ibid.Gallois, A.. “Van Inwagen on Free Will and Determinism”, Fhilosopliicul Studies 29 (1977), 99105Google Scholar and Narveson, Jan. “Compatibilism DefendedPhilosophical Studies 29 (1977), 8387CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Inwagen, Peter Van, “Reply to Narveson”, Philosophical Studies 29 (1977), 8998Google Scholar.

7 Lewis, David, “Are We Free to Break the Laws?”, Theoria 47 (1981), 113121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Inwagen, Van, “Incompatibility”, 54Google Scholar.

10 See Smart, J. J. C.. “Free Will, Praise and Blame”, Mind 70 (1961). 291306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.