it defines it in terms of causal laws.

kennethamy wrote:

it defines it in terms of causal laws.

What is a "causal law"?

It is a universal statement of a regularity between two kinds of things, but which says that the regularity is not accidental, but that there is an explanation of the regularity.

kennethamy wrote:

It is a universal statement of a regularity between two kinds of things, but which says that the regularity is not accidental, but that there is an explanation of the regularity.

Such a notion of causal completeness is definitely false, as has been explained to you before. And it is certainly not what is meant by determinism.

kennethamy wrote:

It is a universal statement of a regularity between two kinds of things, but which says that the regularity is not accidental, but that there is an explanation of the regularity.

causal laws are essentially involved in what philosophers mean by "determinism".

kennethamy wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

It is a universal statement of a regularity between two kinds of things, but which says that the regularity is not accidental, but that there is an explanation of the regularity.

causal laws are essentially involved in what philosophers mean by "determinism".

Determinism is a thesis about laws of nature, and laws of nature are not "statements" and they are independent of explanations. You appear to be talking about laws of science, and it is blindingly obvious that laws of science are irrelevant to the question of determinism. If causal laws are involved, then your definition of causal law is incorrect.

I refer you to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

kennethamy wrote:

I refer you to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

And I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, yet again.

ughaibu wrote:

I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, yet again.

that was what I was referring to by "a stray remark by a philosopher"

ughaibu wrote:

I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, yet again.

my evidence for how the term determinism is used by the majority of professional philosophers overwhelms any that you have.

kennethamy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, yet again.

that was what I was referring to by "a stray remark by a philosopher"

Hilarious.

kennethamy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, yet again.

my evidence for how the term determinism is used by the majority of professional philosophers overwhelms any that you have.

You should be on the stage.

stray ad hominems are not arguments.

The On Line International Encyclopedia of Philosophy

kennethamy wrote:

stray ad hominems are not arguments.

There are plenty of arguments awaiting response. For example, the problem of there being no notion of cause which can be consistently applied in all fields, the incompatibility of cause with determinism due to the irreversibility of cause, etc, the failure of your espousal of a Hempelian notion of cause and most recently, your mischaracterisation of determinism as a thesis about explanatory statements. Your constant appeal to a single line from book published over ten years ago isn't just not overwhelming, it's a complete evasion.

The issue is whether professional philosophers hold (or do not hold) that the notion of universal causal laws are an essential part of the idea of determinism. . . . I have presented in support two statements: One from the Cambridge Dictionary, and one from the On Line Encyclopedia.

Causal determinism (hereafter, simply “determinism”) is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature. Imagine a proposition that completely describes the way that the entire universe was at some point in the past, say 100 million years ago. Let us call this proposition “P.” Also imagine a proposition that expresses the conjunction of all the laws of nature; call this proposition “L.” Determinism then is the thesis that the conjunction of P and L entails a unique future. Given P and L, there is only one possible future, one possible way for things to end up.

The majority of people do believe that determinism is how we've defined it, and you can easily see that by doing a few minutes of research.

kennethamy wrote:

The issue is whether professional philosophers hold (or do not hold) that the notion of universal causal laws are an essential part of the idea of determinism. . . . I have presented in support two statements: One from the Cambridge Dictionary, and one from the On Line Encyclopedia.

kennethamy wrote:

Causal determinism (hereafter, simply “determinism”) is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature. Imagine a proposition that completely describes the way that the entire universe was at some point in the past, say 100 million years ago. Let us call this proposition “P.” Also imagine a proposition that expresses the conjunction of all the laws of nature; call this proposition “L.” Determinism then is the thesis that the conjunction of P and L entails a unique future. Given P and L, there is only one possible future, one possible way for things to end up.

There is no mention here of cause, is there? As I said, determinism is a thesis about laws of nature. There's no mention of "statements" or explanations, is there?
Further, you hold that the future, in a determined world is not fixed, dont you? The above piece, quoted by you, disagrees. By the same author "Since causal determinism removes all alternative possibilities, PAPf preserves the flicker strategist’s insistence that moral responsibility is incompatible with the truth of causal determinism."
http://home.sandiego.edu/~ktimpe/research/critique.pdf
You also hold that there can be "macro-determinism" even if determinism is false at the micro level, your source disagrees, doesn't it? "The course of the future is entirely determined".
You have been consistently and incorrigibly mistaken about determinism in almost its entirety, for all the time I've known you, instead of insisting, in the face of the facts, that you're correct, wouldn't you prefer to hold a view that actually is correct? At present, you claim to be a member of a group of people with whom you disagree!!

Have you understood my explanation of why cause is incompatible with determinism?

If you don't agree with determinism, fine, but why are you denying that it is defined in the manner we've showed?

No, I did not understand your explanation of why cause is incompatible with determinism. Maybe I can understand better if you tell me what your definition of determinism is first.

There is no mention here of cause, is there? As I said, determinism is a thesis about laws of nature. There's no mention of "statements" or explanations, is there?