In a recent Scientific American, I came across an article
with the title "Thought Experiments." I had read that Einstein had
come up with his Theory of Relativity by using "thought experiments."
Of course, his theory has been deemed correct by actual experiments. Until
then, it was simply a theory.
What baffled me though about the article was the subheading
which was "Some philosophers are doing more than thinking deeply. They are
also conducting scientific experiments relating to the nature of free will and
of good and evil." What!? This sounded like something I would read in
magazine about philosophy or religion, not in a magazine devoted to science.
In the first place, a "thought experiment" is not
science, but speculation perhaps bolstered by mathematics as in Einstein's
case. This is the kind of thing philosophers, science fiction writers,
futurists, prophets and other imaginative thinkers have been doing for
thousands of years. One notable "thought experiment" is Rene
Descartes' reasoning from "I think therefore I am" as the one
irrefutable assumption to several other conclusions, all of which were refuted
by later philosophers.
As to the "nature of free will," I believe
psychologists have been doing actual experiments on this for some time without
coming to any definite conclusions. Philosophers have debated "free
will" to death. And then when the author throws in "good and
evil" in the mix, these terms have no intrinsic meaning. Every person on
this planet has a different idea of what is good and what is evil.
I read further in the article and find that persons the
author calls "experimental philosophers" team up with psychologists and
publish in journals. "They have spawned hundreds of papers and come up
with surprising results and some strong opinions on every side." Note that
he does not say that they have come up with any actual scientific facts.
The article blabs on this fashion for three pages, mixing
"thought experiments" with some actual studies in psychology in this
strange manner. He concludes with "... it can sometimes be helpful, and
occasionally indispensable, to have a better understanding of the cognitive
processes that give rise to these beliefs." Duh!
Shame on you Scientific American for printing such nonsense.
