Determinism

[Caecilian]

@Caecilian

I'm just talking about causal determinism, nothing else. I think economic and linguistic determinism loosely borrow on that concept but are quite different from causal determinsim.

Genetic determinism I'm not quite sure of. But if you are referring to the nature vs nurture debate IMO it is a mistake to attribute genetic determinism (~nature) to Dawkins and Dennett. Both gentlemen acknowledge that the genetic makeup is not enough to explain human behaviour.

Yeah, you make some very good points about causal determinism. You're quite right in saying that the philosophical/ scientific distinction is one of emphasis rather than substance.

I think that its worth noting that in science determinism is mainly being contrasted with indeterminacy. Whereas in philosophy, determinism is mainly being contrasted with libertarian free will. Now as far as libertarian free will goes, it doesn't matter if the underlying microphysics is deterministic or stochastic. For philosophical libertarianism to work, free will has to be somehow 'self-causing' (or perhaps not caused or determined at all).

Re. genetic determinism: I'm very well acqainted with what Dawkins and Dennett say about the matter. You're correct in saying that they don't view human behaviour as being genetically determined. However, they do come very close to viewing the physical phenotype as being genetically determined. Genotypes are seen as being programs, and the genetic program or algorithm is largely responsible for determining ontogeny. Human behaviour is co-determined by genes and memes.