He's asking you why pain is a negative thing objectively. He's stressing that there's no extramental fact that makes pain negative. It's rather a mental state that finds it negative. — Terrapin Station

Well, to look for extramental qualities in mental states would be like looking for edges of an egg. I think you're mistakenly lumping ALL that is mental into the category of subjective. Why? Because poking a finger with a needle is painful for everyone. I've never seen an insult evoke laughter. Nor have I seen a happy murder victim. Of course, there are exceptions - the odd masochist. However, to give weightage to such rare cases on the scale of morality would be like thinking one or two passive lions upsets the objective true belief that lions are dangerous. Statistically speaking, you're focussing on the irrelevant. You seem to demand 100% objectivity which is asking the impossible. Not even science has that level of objectivity and I'm sure you have no problems with science. Why then do you single out morality for such overly rigorous treatment?

We see morality as an inherently subjective thing, so there's no reason to defer to objectivity. We can and do impose our own morality, because we don't want to tolerate a world where we allow people to do certain things unchecked. — Terrapin Station

Like I said above, the claim that morality is subjective rests on the few outliers who have a different, what shall I call it, disposition. Your whole argument rests on a handful of oddballs. This is clearly irrational.

So, if you want to continue insisting that morality is subjective, you'll also have to forfeit your rationality.

And why is pain a negative thing? That's a subjective opinion — BlueBanana

I think, like @Terrapin Station, you're confused between mental and subjective. If it is subjective, you wouldn't need to argue. For example people have varying preferences regarding ice cream flavors they like. Nobody argues about my/your flavor being better. That would be purely subjective. There's no logic in flavor choices. By that reasoning infamous serial killers would be, shockingly, moral! This you won't concede.

Also, morality is a sociological concept. It isn't about the individual, which taste and preference is all about. The society decides, through reason, what is moral/immoral. The general consensus, again based on reason, acquires an objective character. There are changes in the standards of morality but they're grounded in increased knowledge of biology, social concepts, etc.

Ok. What would be your first choice between consent and no consent re a relationship with another person?

Ask anyone, barring the psychopath, and they'd invariably like to base their relationships on consent. The other option, no consent, is a last resort because, if anything, it borders on immorality.

I think the well-established practice of making decisions for someone else, unable for some reason to cast his own vote, is sending you off track. It's brain washing. Repeat something long enough and people will think it's ok; even men of God like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad were unable to see the wrongs of slavery.

I agree parents think keeping the best interest of their children, born and unborn, in mind. It's also true that an unborn simply can't give consent. So, the practice of thinking for your children is essentially a contingency measure. It's not moral but we can't help. A necessary evil, so to speak.

There's been progress in technology and physical knowledge, but I how would you gauge progress in respect of the kinds of questions that Socrates was asking? — Wayfarer

So, not much progress. Why?

Territory (philosophical subjects) or tool (logic) or both?

I think the lack of progress in philosophy has more to do with the subject. They're too complex, can't be represented mathematically, can't be experimented upon, etc.

No. It's misleading to call it a last resort if the other options were never really options at all. — Sapientia

Exactly, you have no choice - that's the definition of ''last resort''. Consider the hypothetical that you have the choice to consult the other party's willingness to participate in a pact. It would be wrong then to think for the other party. But...you would do it, as a last resort. That's an admirable act, sometimes, to risk being wrong but, it's a sin.

Your position is just a tiny step away from chaos. If there are no rules, mayhem is inevitable. Besides that...

I still find a problem with the distinction mental vs extramental. Let me try and pin it down.

The sense of morality is based on reason. For example, rape is wrong because it causes pain and deprives the victim of basic human dignity. I don't see how that, the application of logic and reason, is not objective? Logic, by definition, is about following rules of correct thinking, which is the hallmark of objectivity. Your own arguments, based on logic, evidence to the fact that application of reason implies objectivity.

If morality is completely subjective, why do our moral compasses point in one direction on some issues? I say ''some'' because there are cases such as polygamy which are not actually moral problems. Including them within the domain of morality only serves to obscure the objectivity in separating the good from the bad

Sorry I lumped all of you together in my reply but my question is generic.

How far has philosophy progressed since Socrates? Does this paradox still have meaning in modern philosophy? Are philosophical subjects still as vague and unresolved as it was back then?

Is the problem related to the territory (philosophical issues) or the tool (logic) or both?

If the Socratic Paradox still has relevance now, all philosophical works - written and spoken - seem to amount to zero.

I touched on all of this in another discussion, but I will say it again: we are supposed to believe that there is a causal relationship​ between an individual holding a belief and horrible phenomena like genocide, war, ecological collapse, etc. Yet, no conclusive evidence of this relationship is ever presented. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

From what I've read (basic stuff), causal connections are not easy to establish, especially if attempted at the level of scientific rigor.

Also, cause is subdivided into remote cause, proximate cause, necessary cause, sufficient cause, contributory cause, etc. - each with its own place in the causal chain.

As you mentioned, there are a myriad factors that weigh in on a person's actions. Belief, by itself alone, can't be isolated sufficiently to make a scientific statement on the matter.

That said, from the rough outline I provided you on causation, the many types of cause can be used, if only sketchily, to establish a causal link between belief and action. In a nutshell, belief can, at least, be a contributory cause (the weakest causal claim).

Flew over my head. Anyway, thanks

I don't think the distinction mental vs extramental is valid, nor is it useful.

It's not valid because, thinking along these lines, nothing mental can be objective, even philosophy. It also renders your arguments self-defeating.

It's not useful because it doesn't provide us anything prescriptive. Like a doctor who doesn't prescribe medications. One wonders at why the title ''Doctor''.

Here's the thing: Relationships not based on consent are, essentially, a last resort. That is to say, on the ladder of morality it occupies the lowest rung. Doesn't this speak something? Such non-consensual pacts are hovering on the border between what is moral and what is immoral.

I like the distinction you make between the two kinds of universals. One is just a form of convention and the other is grounded in facts.

So, you think what I refer to as objective moral facts is of the former type - basically a matter of convention, following-the-pack sort of thing.

How do you define objectivity then? The definition I'm familiar with is a certain observation is objective to the extent it can be corroborated by as many individuals, instruments as possible. Keep in mind that the credibility is directly proportional to the number of confirmatory data points. In addition, this is important, the issue being evaluated is subject to rational analysis.

You think this is the ad populum fallacy BUT note that this fallacy is committed when the argument depends exclusively on the number of people holding a particular belief. This is not the case with moral issues. There's reason behind a moral belief e.g. killing someone deprives him of a meaningful, enjoyable life. So, no, there's no ad populum fallacy going on. And I think we can be objective about morality.

@Brian(Y)

I feel the primordial reaction to moral issues is emotion. We feel happy when we do something good and feel guilt, remorse, sadness when we're immoral.

Logic and reason follow- rational analysis of our emotions, their basis, their consequences, etc.

You don't think so, even though what I said in the quote above can be demonstrated by example when it comes to pets and children? — Sapientia

I actually don't think this pet - children equivalence will go down well with some people. Anyway...

Prevalent practice permits of guardianship on moral issues - pets and children. However, this is like an improvised speech, just a place holder. It hasn't been subject to rigorous analysis. This is the point of the OP. To add, simple practice doesn't mean it's morally right. Slavery was a practice but we realize it's immoral.

No, that kind of complex abstract thinking is far beyond the capabilities of pets and toddlers. Mutually beneficial? Yes. Mutual consent? No, obviously not — Sapientia

So, if someone is mentally immature it's ok to decide on his/her behalf? This to is just a place holder - an improvisation that prevents paralysis of thought and action.

the car could be physically reconstituted at a later time — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think we're veering towards the concept of identity here. To my knowledge the issue remains unresolved in philosophy. All that means, to me, is that identity is a nebulous idea - look up Ship of Theseus.

It seems you think that the identity of an object is indestructible throughout the process of change from one form to another.

My answer to that is:

Take a human being Mr. X. You will agree that there's a difference between the living Mr. X and an urn containing his ashes. I pin my argument on this difference - something has become nonexistent during the transformation from Mr. X to the pile of ash. This something may persist in memories, books, photos, videos, audio, etc. However, these too will fade and vanish. Then we have the categorical nonexistence you're looking for.

The key factors in your mind-game are the two realms of existence - the mental and physical. In my example above I've shown you an entity, a car that straddles both realms. It's a mental-physical entity. Well, now that I think of it, ALL objects are like that. In effect, identity necessarily requires aspects of both realms of existence - the physical AND the psychical. Losing the physical and/or the psychical part entails loss of identity i.e. the object becomes nonexistent. It's like the set of integers - made of positive numbers AND negative numbers. If you remove either/both, the concept/identity of integer becomes nonexistent.

So, you may reconstitute the car from its parts but that's just the physical aspect of identity. You can't restore the psychical component of the car's identity because people forget, people die. Isn't this categorical nonexistence?

But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you're begging the question, as in you're already assuming categorical nonexistence is impossible.

You can use the same rationale I provided above that the car was categorically nonexistent before it was made. It lacks the physical component of identity, existing only in the mental realm.

That's only if you believe that life is suffering and if you believe that it is morally preferable to avoid suffering (and of course that's only to the person who thinks this). The kid who wasn't born maybe would have wound up thinking that life is suffering and that suffering is preferable to not suffering, or any other sort of alternative. — Terrapin Station

I agree. The biggest ''IF'' is about the notion life is suffering.

You said:

In that I think that

(a) "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible"

and

(b) Antinatalism

are equally ridiculous, for the same reasons. — Terrapin Station

Denying both (a) and (b) leads to a contradiction. That stance is possible only if morality is subjective - a matter of preference, perhaps moulded by religion and culture, etc.

But is morality subjective as you say?

If you look at the past, morality was subjective. Different cultures had their own moral standards. Infanticide was common. Child marriage was practiced. Women extra-marital affairs were stoned to death, an eye-for-an-eye was a form of punishment, etc.

But take at a look at now. All the above are now considered immoral universally. To make the long story short, we are, undeniably, approaching moral objectivity. Does this trend in the moral world have a sound rational basis? I don't know but what we can glean from it is, deep down in the subconscioud(?), we do believe morality is objective.

Absence of consent, can be, and in many cases is, a non-factor — Sapientia

I don't think so. Consent is key in any interaction between two/more people. Ask any court, anywhere. I accept the concept of mutually beneficial relationships. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with establishing them but, that's a BIG but, we must remember that they're, in essence, contracts/agreements. As such they require the contracting parties to be capable of consent because it is essential that both parties see the benefits in the relationship. No side has the right to think for the other, especially in absentia. The moment this occurs, the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship ceases.

There's no one to think for prior to that person existing. You can't think for someone who doesn't exist yet. — Terrapin Station

Take a consequentialist approach to the issue. Consequences, necessarily in the future, are all that matter. So, the future existence of a person, the quality of the person's life have moral weight in the present. So, nonexistence, IF life is suffering, is morally preferable. Conversely, to bear children would be categorically immoral.

Now let's take the virtue-ethicist path. As I explained (above) in my reply to Sapientia, there is something inherently wrong, morally speaking, in engaging another person without consent, as is the case in birthing children.

Thus, it is morally wrong to bear children IF life is suffering.

There is no objectivity in something like "life is suffering." There is no objectivity in ethics or valuations. — Terrapin Station

Is it all a matter of taste and preference then? If it is then why get into arguments (logical ones)? Argument means objectivity, at least an attempt at it.

Recommendations make no sense unless we know the person we're making the recommendations to. Different people have different tastes, like different things, etc — Terrapin Station

You're right but this logic fails because it can be used against you. Not knowing the tastes of a person denies you the right to think for him/her - neither to not have children, and more importantly, nor to have children.

So, we've reached an impasse.

For me, the next step is to try and bring some objectivity into the game and that I've done in my previous post - the truth of "life is suffering" is slowly becoming suspect. This isn't a matter of taste. Maybe it was, but now it's acquring an objective quality that's tending towards falsehood.

Ontologically it's rather just a category error. — Terrapin Station

I don't think it's simply a cateogry error. Nonexistence does imply a freedom from suffering. And I think we have real experiences that validate such a notion e.g. we put animals out of misery, which is I think, apart from being an euphemism for killing, roughly fits, what the OP has in mind.

Indeed, I agree, nonexistent people have no moral standing. We can't murder Harry Potter, neither can we make him happy. However, when it comes to birthing children, nonexistence has moral weight. To illustrate, don't we advise a friend against a movie, music, game, experience? We say a movie is so bad it's not worth watching and these are minor issues compared to life. Life can be beautiful but, our world being what it is - indifferent to our welfare - we're always inches from disaster. It seems then that the logic behind advising someone against a movie is applicable, twice as much, to bearing children.

Also, consider the case of a mother carrying a child with a severe genetic defect. Most people choose to abort the pregnancy based on the premise that life would be intolerable suffering for the child.

So, labeling the OP's concern as a category error is correct but hardly diminishes the strength of his/her argument.

I think Godel's incompleteness theorem is:

1) If a system is complete (as in every possible truth can be proved) then it's necessarily inconsistent (contradictions arise)

2) If a system is consistent (as in there are no contradictions) then it is neccesarily incomplete (some truths can't be proved)

You've shown that, given a complete system S, a proposition such as G: G is unprovable in S, will generate contradictions. Thus, the system S is necessarily incomplete.

Now assume the system S to be consistent. Taking G:G is unprovable, by the initial assumption, we shouldn't generate contradictions. But, G is designed such that we do. So, we conclude S is inconsistent.

Am I getting this right? If you reply, please keep it simple. Thanks.

If something could be completely omnipotent, then it ought to be able to stop any sort of logical conclusion from obtaining, correct?

For example, to say that something omnipotent could make itself not omnipotent wouldn't pose any sort of difficulties, because any sort of implications from this dual state of impossible affairs could simply be stopped. Because why would an omnipotent thing not have the power to stop the force of a conclusion, or even the power to make something completely unintelligible and unvalidatable become sensible and resolve to some truth value? — maplestreet

I agree. Omnipotence doesn't have to follow rules, is complete freedom, and the word ''impossible'' simply has no meaning.

It's a singularity for those of us restrained by limits imposed on us by the physical and the psychical. Like physicists, simply clueless about what happened before the big bang, omnipotence, in its full manifestation, is simply incomprehensible.

In a sense, then, omnipotence is as meaningless as division by zero. It's possible to write down the word, ''omnipotence'' just as it's possible to write 5 ÷ 0 BUT it's meaning is simply beyond human comprehension.

I don't understand the root of the problem. Perhaps it's got to do with self-reference like the liar's paradox.

It's always interesting to test the limits of the human mind. I'm no genius so I may not say anything worthwhile.

Anyway...

One way to make sense of it is to bisect the meaning of "after" as follows:

1. Temporal after as in what we mean when we say ''come after 2 o'clock''

2. Non-temporal after as in what we mean when we say ''the glass broke after a stone hit it''

Meaning 1 of "after" wouldn't make sense since with the destruction of the universe time would lose meaning.

Only meaning 2 of "after" makes sense as simply one event following another.

Am I making sense?

Very interesting issue you brought up. I've come across it many times - didn't give it any thought.

It does matter because atheists use the ''atheism is lack of belief'' to wiggle out of logically ''inconvenient'' positions.

Atheists take this stance especially when theists demand disproof of god. Nobody, as of now, can disprove god's nonexistence - there's too big a lacuna, despite our pride, in our knowledge bank to say anything definitive on the issue. Note this applies to theists too.

What does lack of belief mean? For me it's the blank slate which @Bitter Crank mentioned in his post. To illustrate, as a 4 year old I lacked belief in gravity. The concept simply didn't exist (for me). As far as gravity was concerned I was a blank slate. As I grew up I learned the concept and then formed a belief, that gravity is real, and the blank slate was replaced by knowledge of gravity.

Likewise, as a 4 year old I was a blank slate where faster-than-light-speed travel was concerned. With time this was replaced by knowledge, disbelief of such a possibility.

So, there is a difference between lack of belief and disbelief. In simple terms, the former is ignorance and the latter is knowledge.

The song of the atheist is ''God doesn't exist'' which, to me, is simply the short version of ''I know God doesn't exist'', which is a claim to knowledge of God's ontology. So, atheism is definitely not lack of belief.

We see eye to eye on this issue. Consent is a keystone in ethics/morality. Without consent any relationship would automatically become an imposition and that is an attack on personal freedom, which is morally reprehensible.

Since, children didn't consent to being born, it implies that parents have committed a moral wrong. The consquences in the OP - the unaviodable suffering and pain that accompanies life - don't even matter. Absence of consent, in and of itself, is sufficient to qualify the act of proceeation as immoral. The suffering and pain of life just clinches the argument against bearing children.

The whole argument rests on two pillars:

1. Consent was not taken

2. Life is suffering

On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance. It's impossible to remove gravity from our lives and to include it in moral, or any other, evaluation would be unreasonable, to say the least. In short, the distinction ''can't'' vs ''didn't'' matters. Children can't consent not didn't consent. That, some say, relieves the parents of moral responsibility in birthing children and, simulaltaneously, surrenders a child's autonomy to the parents. Is this true?

Empirical data suggests that this is true. Many situations exist where people can't consent e.g. when as a child, in a coma, in absentia, when mentally challenged, etc. At these times, someone - a loved one, friend, colleague, parent - makes the decision for the person, hopefully, keeping best interests in mind. As you can see, impossibility does matter - we're morally permitted to make decisions for others when it's a can't rather than a didn't consent.

2 is controversial and actually defies empirical evidence. Most people aren't depressed, suicide is not as common as would be expected, people aren't avoiding having children, etc.

One could say that this is simply because people haven't given enough thought on the matter i.e. they fail to see the truth, the truth that life is suffering. If everyone were to just give a moment to consider the matter, everyone would see that life's just not worth it.

However, one could argue back along the same lines. Take Buddhism for example. It's central tenet is exactly what is your premise - life is suffering. But, according to the Buddha, this suffering has an irrational origin - unmoderated attachment, expecting more than is possible, clinging to the superficial, a failure to recognize and accept nature. So, right back at you, in fact, suffering is not because you haven't contrmplated the issue, rather, it's because you haven't.

In addition, the experience of life is improving - we're healthier, safer, happier than we were a thousand years ago. This trend is likely to continue and a few thousand years from now, life will be even better. This seriously undermines your argument. Life is a dynamic force, it progresses, and your argument ignores this crucial fact. Your argument was good in the past, is less applicable now, and will become utterly bad in the future.

Thanks.

Great story! Maybe:P

From what I know, physics is about symmetry, electron-proton, matter-antimatter, etc., and this, I believe, is a feature of the mathematical models that aim to describe reality. If I recall correctly, these mathematical models have predicted particles whose existence were later verified through experimentation. Daoism is about duality which is also symmetry. Am I making sense?

Very succinct and to the point and quite prescient of quantum physics (note the wave symbol that represents the Genesis). — Rich

I'm not a scientist and quantum physics is above my paygrade but I find it interesting that there's some sorta connection. It's actually amazing! What could be the basis of this link? Coincidence? Deliberate? I don't want to be the spoilsport but there are many similar claims - science in religious books - made by Islam and Hinduism. Is the Toaism-quantum physics connection more credible?

So beings come into existence; exist in only one way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.; and then, while in that same way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc., lose their existence and cease to exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The way I see it is a particular form of a thing acquires an identity over and above that given by its composition. For example, take metal, plastic, rubber and glass and make a car. These materials have their own existence and yet, they interact to create a car whose identity as a vehicle is something more. Further interaction with its owner and his/her family will add to this identity. However, a time will come when it will be discarded, dismantled into its composite parts. We could say that it has simply changed form but it has lost the identity it acquired over its lifetime as a car. We could then say it changed its form into, hopefully, fond memories, pictures, etc. But these to will fade away over time - pictures decay, people die. Eventually, the car will literally vanish both from the physical and mental planes. It is then that the car will be categorically nonexistent. I think if we take something closer to home, like a person, the message becomes even poignantly clearer, for in death lies the answer to your question of categorical nonexistence.

If B did not exist and then suddenly came into existence, what non-random thing explains the latter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You have a point but it doesn't help your case because it matters not how something, anything arose. What matters is, well, cateogrical nonexistence.

Maybe at some point everybody here was like Harry Potter is now? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Please read above.

There are free versions online — T Clark

I downloaded S. Mitchell's Tao Te Ching. Thanks. The first line reads:

The Tao that can be called is not the Tao

Kinda makes me wonder what the whole book is about if the subject can't be "called".

Perhaps as one member said, it's as close an approximation to the truth as language will allow. Then I began to wonder if Lao Tze were alive today would his work be accepted in a reputed philosophical journal? If yes, why? If no, why?

Is it possible to categorically not exist? Yes or no? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But the rules of your game preclude any such possibility. We must speak/write of things but the moment we do, the things we speak/write about exist. It's like inventing a game where you, the inventor, can't lose. The commendable creativity aside, you won't find people who'll play this game. Even if they do, they'll spend most of the time commenting on your rules (as you can see)

I also don't understand how if categorical nonexistence is possible, everything has to be random. Please explain.

What I can see from your posts is you're drifting, purposely(?), into some kind of determinism. Can you elaborate on that?

Is such categorical non-existence possible? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You use existence in a very broad sense - in fact I think your meaning of existence involves ALL domains of human experience - be it mental or physical (have I left anything out?).

If this is your definition, a few things happen:

1. It voids the naturally accepted meaning of existence as something that is physical. Many posters have clarified this point.

2. It leads to the weird(?) conclusion that everything exists. This may seem profound but is practically useless and dangerous. Losing the distinction between existence and nonexistence is usually a sign of madness or stupidity (like me). Maybe I'm missing something. Please clarify

Your idea of categorical nonexistence is empty of meaning because you won't allow us to speak of anything - the moment we do, it, according to you, exists (in some way, shape, form, constitution, state).

It's an interesting thought and if I can think of anything new I'll let you know (if you're interested).

So, my question is, how do you interpret the quote? — Daniel Sjöstedt

I think it's necessary to put what a man (or woman) utters in the context of his/her times - the socio-cultural milieu that influences him/her. Did Nietzsche only serve as a mouthpiece for the then prevalent credo? If so, he can be forgiven for this oversight(?)

Anyway who says we're any better? Women are still underpaid, sexual and domestic abuse etc. is still rampant.

And while Nietzsche has the courage (temerity?) to speak his mind, we (at least some of us) hold our tongues for fear of the inevitable backlash.

Also, while I won't go so far as to say women are inferior, I do think there are real differences between men and women. Physical and mental differences are clearly mentioned in science. The question that naturally arises is that of suitability. Do you employ a 4 feet tall frail woman as a fireman or policeman?

It's not rational. It requires a surrender. — T Clark

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Strongly disagree with the second sentence. The Tao can't be understood, only experienced. — T Clark

So, the Tao Te Ching is trying to express the inexpressible. This puzzles me. I too have had experiences that make my rational side uncomfortable - the vague feeling that reality hides a truth, that something wondrous lies beneath the surface, waiting to be understood/(in your words) experienced. However, this feeling is so difficult to analyze rationally that it frustrates me. Is it the same for you?

I think logic and rationality miss a lot at whatever scale you use them. As I said, to me, the Tao doesn't have anything to do with the heart. — T Clark

I agree. There's something more to reality than just logic and rationality. I think the very existence of the Tao Te Ching confirms that. Even Zen Buddhism speaks something along those lines. The question is ''what is it?"

In any case, current understanding of quantum physics (probably the closest we can come to a fundamental understanding of nature and this time) pretty much undermines determinism. — Rich

Isn't quantum physics about randomness? If it is then it sabotages determinism but that still isn't enough to infer free will. After all, we still can't be sure that the quantum randomness is within our control.

So, if you're trying to say free will exists (are you?) based on the above I don't think the argument works.

he prime difficulty is that our psychology is radically altered by our psychological theories. If this happened in biology, it would be as though as soon as we discover that rabbits breed like rabbits, the all turn celibate. — unenlightened

I see, the problem is a fundamental one - like trying to observe animal behavior crudely, unaware that the observer alters the behavior of the animals e.g. they may be taken as prey or predator. I wonder how animal researchers solve this issue? Can't we apply that to humans? Perhaps not, given our intelligence and impressionable nature, this problem multiplies manifold.

I'm sure this issue is a known problem to psychologists. Don't they have a solution? I'm asking because it invalidates all their work.

From another angle, psychology reveals harmful behavior e.g. biases, prejudices, fallacious thinking, etc. Knowledge of such aspects of the psyche and behavior modifications arising therefrom, seem to me, a positive thing. The study itself may become outmoded the moment it becomes public knowledge BUT its effects have been therapeutic. Don't we owe it to the diligent psychologist for continuing to work despite the flaw you mentioned?

From such a perspective, psychology is a highly dynamic field, requiring constant research and data collection because its data has such a short shelf-life. So, in my humble opinion, we can solve this problem in psychology by keeping pace with the data as it changes.

Determinism, in my view, is the belief that the past completely determines the future. Maybe that's a bit confusing, bringing time into the picture. Another, perhaps better, way to see it is as any event being completely at the mercy of another which precedes it.

Free will is classicaly represented through choice. A person has free will if s/he can choose, well, freely, as in, not under any influence s/he can't override.

Given the above, it follows that determinism precludes free will. This I think is what they call hard determinism.

The question then is, do we possess free will? The ramifications are important e.g. moral responsibility, fate, etc.

Here's where I'm puzzled. To me free will is demonstrable - just set up multiple choice question - and therefore provable through experimentation. Yet, no philosophy book mentions of such experiments! Why? Is it because it's impossible to count and reckon ALL the factors that may influence our choices? As you can see, this is a practical problem. Is it because we can never override some of these influences? This is, what I call, a theoretical problem. I'd be grateful if someone would answer this question.

That said, there's another point I'd like to make. The laws of nature, as discovered in science, are inviolable and immutable over time and space. We're are put in a box, so to speak, whose walls are formed by these so-called laws of nature. We may see a choice that violates these laws, for instance one can imagine oneself levitating, BUT we can't make that choice. So, in a way, we are in a deterministic world. There's some degree of freedom (apparent) e.g. whether to drink coke or pepsi but these choices are restrained at some point along the way, for we can't drink through our ears. I wonder if such constraints extend to other domains of choice.

So, in some crude sense, we are living in a deterministic world; well, at least a semi-deterministic world.

If I'm not mistaken, science to had similar beginnings - a lot of speculation and very little data. It was only comparatively recent that science got into the business of collecting hard data and rigorous analysis.

So, if psychology appears to fail as a science it's only because it's in the process of collecting data that'll vindicate/void their theories. The problem is made more difficult by the complexity of the subject; the prime difficulty being emotions and thoughts can't be quantified and thus the exactitude of mathematics can't be applied. Therefore, it's not surprising psychology lacks the rigor that is claimed by its cousin, biology.

It's easy to overlook important details when you're in the thick of something and hindsight is always 20/20. So, pay attention to the timeline - the beginnings, the progress, the successes and failures of psychology as a discipline. Even if it's not a science now, in the next few decades it may achieve that status.

Is this overly optimistic, or achievable given the right set of circumstances? — CasKev

I think its achievable and I especially like what you said:

collection of choices that enrich your life and that of others. — CasKev

It makes your success a thing to applaud. I hope you succeed.

What seems to help me is to have self-confidence on one hand balanced by a healthy self-skepticism on the other hand — 0 thru 9

Ah! Middle path?