Listen, even Cashmore says that "the only wild card that allows any room for maneuvering outside of genetics and ones environment is the inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter". So even him has to accept my reasoning.
No, he says:
The introduction of stochasticism would appear to eliminate determinism. However there are three additional points that need to be addressed here. The first point is that, at least in some instances, what at first glance may appear to be stochastic might simply reflect microenvironmental differences and may not be the direct consequence of some inherent stochastic property of atomic particles. The second point is that some physicists, for example t Hooft (14), do not necessarily accept the apparent unpredictability associated with the quantum mechanical view of matter (It was concern about this unpredictability that prompted Einstein to offer the viewpoint that God does not play dice). Finally, even if the properties of matter are confirmed to be inherently stochastic, although this may remove the bugbear of determinism, it would do little to support the notion of free will: I cannot be held responsible for my genes and my environment; similarly, I can hardly be held responsible for any stochastic process that may influence my behavior!
In any case, I agree with jtimon
Quote
The absence of free will does not legitimate coercion [...] so there's no point in finding out in this thread if there's free will or not.
Going back to your point, I still don't see what your problems is. I asked you to list the logical fallacies behind an RBE, I answered them, and all you could say was that "science can't tell you what to choose between nuclear and solar energy".
Of course, if you know how the application of the scientific method for social concern work, you'll soon find out that it does, I am preparing a video to explain how that works if you are unfamiliar with the process.
Anything else substantial, beside the usual "you're a cult, your a cult! YOUR A CULT, damnit!"?
