There wouldn't even be a scientific method if our consciousness was not volitional. We would be conscious of the facts of reality automatically, with no need to validate our knowledge. It would be infallible.
What your scientists have discovered is that the subconscious is active in the decision making process. They have found brain activity which temporally precedes whatever activity they have designated as the 'top layer choice'. But brain activity is not conscious. It's electro-chemical, and deterministic---the opposite of choosing. If the conscious mind isn't making choices, the subconscious isn't either. If there is no choice involved in the process of human consciousness, then there is no power to deviate from sensory stimuli and no way of employing a critical method of validation.
Determinism, or science. You may have your cake, or you may eat it, but you may not do both.
See, and that may very well be the case. Scientists are NOT saying that they have "the answer". All they are saying is that the conscious mind is most likely not it. They are not saying that that necessarily means the subconscious mind IS it, though.
As for the notion that free will is a prerequisite for doing science / thinking critically etc, that is not the case at all. As I said previously, facts are facts independently of whether or not we discover them, can think about them or can understand them (the physics text book). Because you and I can question whether we have free will is not an a priori proof that we have it. That's just a circular argument. "We have free will, therefore we can think about whether we have it." Or, restating the same exact claim "If we didn't have free will, we couldn't think about whether we had it or not." The refutation to that is obvious: "Why not?...If we are fated (by circumstances of the universe) to be thinking about free will in this moment, and nothing has happened to stimulate us to think of something else right now...why would we NOT be thinking of free will?"
Also, determinism and the ability to
do science are not mutually exclusive. Remember, science is not "perfect" it's a lot of trial and error. Living in a deterministic universe does not automatically mean that the science that intelligent beings (or beings that operate under the illusion that they are intelligent) do will always provide a perfect mesh with reality. Sure, we can do science, and it is most practical to operate our day-to-day lives as if everything we do is under our control and not a reaction (the
only possible reaction) to the combination of every event that preceded it since the beginning of time.
The alternative is quite scary (to me at least)...All of the universe, all matter and energy (and whatever else is out there) is simply a collection of an unfathomable amount of particles bouncing off of each other and reacting to each other according to the laws of physics (plenty of which we may never fully understand). To take it to it's full conclusion, if free will doesn't exist, well then
you or
I or anyone doesn't
really exist either. I'm not talking about our physical bodies or brains of course (just another sub-collection of all the particles of the universe) but our minds, or for lack of a better word, our "souls".
If the universe and everything in it is purely physical, then everything is governed by physics. If that's the case, it's free will does not exist because it cannot exist. Even allowing for quantum fluctuations does not allow us to re-enter free will into the equation because we do not have any control over those quantum fluctuations that may change the outcome of an event. Then free will is an illusion, but if we don't really exist independently of the
physical particles that make us up, then who exactly is experiencing (being tricked by) the illusion?
