MoSattler
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
1,159
Submissions
409
Member since
May 14
Joined 6 years ago
I wonder if they also compensate them to the highest standards.
The author themself appears to be unclear about the specific stance they are opposing. While it doesn't seem like they are strawmaning intentionally, they are arguing against positions that no reasonable person actually holds.
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?