From Neil Doherty, Wilthorpe, South Yorkshire, UK
Continuing the debate on free will that regularly features in New Scientist these days, I am concerned that the scientific costs of this discourse are rising exponentially as more scientists pick a side.
I realise that doing science also requires discussion, so that we might progress by such means as well as through experiment and empirical observation. None of these methods can check free will via the scientific method.
The costs of discussing an unprovable conjecture like the existence of free will are wasted “science”. If one can’t present serious evidence beyond the work of the mind alone, then one can’t prove the speculation, no matter how long the discussion lasts.
Scientists need to consider how much research time they are wasting on this topic, then get on with properly testable science and leave free will to the philosophers.
Advertisement
