Seems like unwarranted either-or binary thinking: Either we're totally in control of ourselves, or we have no control at all. I suspect that doesn't square with most people's personal experiences.<p>(Cf. Paul's letter to the Romans: "<i>I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.</i>" [1] )<p>One problem might lie in the nomenclature. The term "free will" is simply wrong. And it's not like "sunrise," which is likewise wrong but for everyday purposes the error is harmless.<p>[1] Romans 7.15, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:15-20" rel="nofollow">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:15-20</a>
"Smilansky is not advocating policies of Orwellian thought control." He's just advocating policies of Orwellian thought control against scientists who don't take his advice to stop telling people free will doesn't exist.
> if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of society, the true must go<p>I vehemently disagree. This is a prelude to Brave New World.
So basically, his argument is that, unless our choices are 100% completely independent of our environment, we don't have free will.<p>To be honest, I'm having trouble following his logic here, and advocating living a "lie" so that people don't suddenly go on a reefer-madness style rampage is in and of itself quite silly.<p>We can make choices for good or for worse, and you do so every day. If you're in a bad mood, you can be snarky and mean to the barista at the coffee shop, or you can just suck it up and be pleasant. Saying you have no free will in the matter is ridiculous.
why come up with a free will theorem when hand waving apparently suffices :
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem</a>