McKay and Johnson (1991) demonstrated Beta is invalid by constructing counterexamples where unavoidability fails to transfer across conjunction, undermining incompatibilism's logical foundation.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Beta(The Consequence argument for the incompatibility of determinism and free will): An inferential principle used in the Consequence argument, which the compatibilist response targets as invalid.
Logical foundation(as what the philosophers claimed incompatibilism had lost): The basic logical structure or reasoning that an argument relies on to be valid and convincing.
McKay and Johnson (1991)(as reference to the source of philosophical research): Two philosophers (David McKay and David Johnson) who published research in 1991 arguing against a particular logical argument called Beta.
Transfer across conjunction(as a logical principle that the philosophers claimed breaks down): The idea that if a property applies to two separate things, it should also apply when you combine those two things together (like if A must happen AND B must happen, then A-and-B must happen).

Based on where you are in your exploration