But it isn't debatable at all. It has a perfectly well understood standard use. That one or two deviate from that use is no reason to think it is not the standard use of the term. It is the ordinary philosophical use of "determinism".

all events have causes, yes. That does not answer the question if the same causes always give rise to the same events and that question fundamentally is what is of interest in talking about a future with one versus multiple possiblities. Address that, please. And also address just what is the difference between your soft and hard determinism in terms of physical reality not "free will", please.

The only answer one seems to get about "soft determinism" is that it is the notion of determinism that is compatible with free will but that is an evasion of how soft and hard determinism are different in any meaningful physical way. There are subtleties of meaning which are being evaded or glossed over.

Of course what juries and lawyers and even the man on the street are interested in is whether "the defendent" could in fact given the situation have acted otherwise. They are not interested in innane discussions about hard and soft forms of determinism and causes.

all events have causes, yes.

Change in the world is probably one of the most difficult ever problems to explain in Philosophy...how does the miracle of change operates ?

That lay-people are not interested in academic philosophy discussions? Who doesn't know that?

You, apparently, and Pyrrho, appealing to a general usage that isn't what either philosophers or physicists are talking about when they write about determinism. The Stanford Encyclopedia article is written by a lone deviant?!? Hilarious! and outrageously arrogant.

But there is a standard philosophical use of the term, "Determinism" isn't there? And it clearly involves causation.

You are mistaken.

That's true. So what? The man on the street is not interested in whether at the velocity of light time slows down either. So what? What is your point? That lay-people are not interested in academic philosophy discussions? Who doesn't know that?

You are mistaken. Determinism is a straight forward concept, the basic claim is that given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly specified by the given state in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature. It doesn't take much thought to figure out that this is an irreducibly global thesis, and consequently, there are no elements of a determined world that can be meaningfully isolated as "events", and no portion of the description can be isolated as a "cause". In short, both the notions of event and cause are irreducibly local, and because determinism is irreducibly global, realism about the notions of cause and event are incompatible with realism about determinism. I know this is all above your head, but hopefully there will be enough readers who will benefit, to justify yet another post pointing out the basics, without any sign of progress towards discussing any interesting ideas that determinism might give rise to.

My point is that the real issue, the issue of interest is continuously evaded.
The real issue about determinism being whether there is only one actual real possiblity for the future or many different possiblities.
The real issue about free will being whether there is only one action given a situation that an indiviudal can choose or many different actions and that the future than changes.

Well, of course.

1. Necessarily, if you do A, then you do A (and not something else B).
But that doesn't mean that,
2. If you do A, then you necessarily do A (and not something else, B).

1 is true (and as you might say, trivially true, because it is a tautology).
But 2. is false (and, of course, not a tautology).

You seem to be confusing 1 with 2, and think that because 1 is true, that 2 is true.

Determinism, of course, implies 1, since tautologies are implied by every statement. But Determinism does not imply 2. Since, if Determinism is true, and 2 is false, that would be (logically) impossible, for a truth cannot imply a falsity.

"Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendell Holmes. The One-Horse Shay.

No I understand the difference quite clearly. I am just saying people should clearly indicate if determinism as they are using the term implies that the future is fixed in all degrees or open in some degrees and not use confusing language to indicate their position.

Clearly if all determinism means is that events have causes I accept that.

Clearly though "determinism" has also been used (even though you would say incorrectly and improperly so) to mean that the future is fixed in all its particulars. I do not accept that. Unfortunately it is this latter meaning that is the more common notion; at least among as you would say (non philosophers) and confusing the two meanings or intentions is causing much miscommunication and misunderstanding.

But isn't it a philosophical question whether determinism (the view that every event is subsumable under a universal law of nature) implies "fixity" or not? Should we simply decide it by distinguishing two different uses of the term, "determinism"? That seem to me the simple way out, but the lazy-man's way, who is too lazy to philosophize about it. It reminds me of something Bertrand Russell remarked on another issue: "It has all the advantages of theft over honest labor".

Well for me it seems more like choosing semantics over philosophy. Arguing about the proper of preferred meaning of words as opposed to the concepts in question. The concept in question is the fixity of the future when it comes to "free will" not the meaning of determinism. I do not see how arguing about which meaning of determinism is to be preferred helps clarify the issue at hand.

Well for me it seems more like choosing semantics over philosophy. Arguing about the proper of preferred meaning of words as opposed to the concepts in question. The concept in question is the fixity of the future when it comes to "free will" not the meaning of determinism. I do not see how arguing about which meaning of determinism is to be preferred helps clarify the issue at hand.

But the question is not about what the "preferred meaning" of "determinism" is (whatever that means). It is about whether the view that every event is subsumable under some law of nature implies that people cannot do otherwise than what they actually do. That is not "semantics" (or a trivial matter of language; should we call what is an elevator in the United States a "lift" as they do in Britain?) It is a philosophical matter.

Well yes, that is closer to the real issue. Yet, despite multiple posts by you, I can still not determine your position on these issues.

Is the future fixed (only one possiblity) or open (multiple possiblities)?
and
Can an individual do or have done otherwise?

My position pretty clearly is that the future is open and an individual can do otherwise, which makes me a target but at least there is some clarity about my inclinations. What about yours?