Why shouldn't I talk to the philosopher, who does know what I am talking about?I'm not completely sure what your question is here, but it sounds like it may be begging.
In the sense of "why shouldn't I take my toothache to the dentist"
Yes. There's no indication in the laws of physics or of biology of anything that resembles a genuine choice. If you think otherwise, show it.
It is a fact that naturalistic libertarianism has been advanced Robert Kane , Tony Dore and others.
I would invite you to reflect on 3 things:
Why you think your own opinions are a bether approximation to facticity than a survey of expert opinion.
What you mean by Genuine Choice.
And...whether you are looking for Genuine Choice only in fundamental laws, or allowing it to be a mechanism allowed by, but not necessitated, by fundamental laws.
Naturalistic libertarianism is a genuine case, because it is backed by some professional philosophers. That may not be good enou.gh for you , but it is good enough for Wikipedia.
You are arguing as though scientists are the only relevant authorities, and as though thethe vast majority of them agree with you...as though you are on the evolution side of an evolution vs creation debate.
But you are not. You have presented no evidence for such a majority, nor does it exist.
. To a large extent, the problem isn't that philosophers haven't gotten the right answers, it is that many of them then spend inordinate amounts of time on the bad ones.
Ie, the ones you don't like. But maybe the professionals are better able to judge what is good or bad.
, simply repeatedly asserting that professional philosophy is somehow in good shape
That's the default hypothesis. The burden is in you.
er. But that doesn't change that philosophy as practiced today has deep-seated problems.
Unsupported opinion. Provide evidence that someone else can do better.
is just like asserting that you believe in free-will,
I didn't assert that I believe in it. I asserted that I can see a way in which it could work that is compatible with physics. It is an empirically confirmable ,model, and I would only be glad if someone with access to a laboratory were to confirm or falsify it.
In the sense of "why shouldn't I take my toothache to the dentist"
If I replaced dentist with back pain and chiropractor, or any disease and homeopath, would that logic work? What about a problem with the state of your soul and a priest? Taking apparent subject matter experts as genuine experts as a default is fraught with peril. That's before we deal with how that's worse in disciplines which lack easy metrics that they are succeeding.
...Yes. There's no indication in the laws of physics or of biology of anything that resembles a genuine choic
Why Talk to Philosophers? Part I. by philosopher of science Wayne Myrvold.
See also Sean Carroll's own blog entry, Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy.
Sean classifies the disparaging comments physicists make about philosophy as follows: "Roughly speaking, physicists tend to have three different kinds of lazy critiques of philosophy: one that is totally dopey, one that is frustratingly annoying, and one that is deeply depressing". Specifically:
He counters each argument presented.
Personally, I am underwhelmed, since he does not address the point of view that philosophy is great at asking interesting questions but lousy at answering them. Typically, an interesting answer to a philosophical question requires first recasting it in a falsifiable form, so that is becomes a natural science question, be it physics, cognitive sciences, AI research or something else. This is locally known as hacking away at the edges. Philosophical questions don't have philosophical answers.