• Metaphysician Undercover
    5.6k

    It's this remark which I was replying to:
    Kippo said: "Biological determinism is certainly true to an extent...".
    I think there's a problem with saying that something is true to an extent.

    I suggested that when the causes for a certain type of behaviour are seen to be biological, for the most part, like habits, yet there are exception to the rule, then biological determinism is ruled out by those exceptions. And "true to an extent" doesn't make sense. But I just said "determinism" is ruled out, so you jumped in on my mistake, and said it's not, because there could be other determinist causes which are responsible, that are not biological. I meant to say biological determinism is ruled out.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.