The Free Will Show Episode 32: Incompatibilism and Incompossibilism with Kristin Mickelson
Jan 24, 2022
Kristin Mickelson, a metaphysics and free will philosopher and editor, discusses different uses of 'incompatibilism' and why sloppy terminology confuses the debate. She contrasts correlation versus explanation problems. Topics include manipulation arguments, the master manipulation slippery slope, Mele's zygote argument, and rhetorical uses of thought experiments.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
From Farm To Free Will Scholar
- Kristin Mickelson recounts her path from a small-town farm and veterinary studies to philosophy via a class with Martha Gibson.
- She worked in a vet clinic, studied languages, then shifted to free will research after classes with Michael McKenna and postdoc work in Gothenburg.
Correlation Versus Relevance In Free Will
- Kristin Mickelson distinguishes correlation (incompossibility) from deeper relevance relations (incompatibility) in the free will debate.
- She compares trivial inconsistency (two plus two equals five vs moon made of cheese) to genuine antagonistic incompatibility like bachelorhood and marriage.
Lehrer's Antagonistic Incompatibilism Restated
- Lehrer's original incompatibilism intended an explanatory antagonistic relation, not merely logical inconsistency.
- Mickelson reframes logical inconsistency as incompossibility: no possible world contains both theses, which lacks the explanatory content Lehrer wanted.