> For, there is clearly bound up in such arguments the assumption that those being reasoned with are free to change their minds based on the merits (or demerits) of the evidence presented.
I understand that the author is arguing sincerely, but certain statements raise concerns about whether they fully grasp the concept of determinism.
Why is it necessary to assume the existence of free will for a person to be capable of evaluating new evidence and have a subsequently revised opinion based on this new information?
I understand that the author is arguing sincerely, but certain statements raise concerns about whether they fully grasp the concept of determinism.
Why is it necessary to assume the existence of free will for a person to be capable of evaluating new evidence and have a subsequently revised opinion based on this new information?