It's because you're asking about a SUPER complex topic with a binary yes/no question. The philosophical question itself is huge. Then there's the scientific piece and what he meant by established science. I'm thinking he doesn't mean the physical sciences because I can't think of any experiments that could be replicated that would yield the same results over time in a physical way. A quick search shows that there's psychological science done on the issue. Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: "Don't stop believing!" Psychological science is not the same type of science I think of when I think of established science. I wasn't willing to read the article to see if he goes further into what he means by established science since it's simply thrown into the sentence you quoted. Is there more information in the article by what he meant?To discuss free will in terms of scientific psychology is therefore to invoke notions of self-regulation, controlled processes, behavioral plasticity, and conscious decision-making.
Which is why I haven't asked a binary question. What I asked was: "What proof is there to the notion that there is no free will as far as science is concerned?". When you have the opportunity to research something using precise measurements, there's no need to try and understand the world through empirical research. I was wondering if people of Hubski could recall a study on the matter or something.It's because you're asking about a SUPER complex topic with a binary yes/no question.