This is why I tend to just ignore the free will debate; under free will denial, all possible outcomes from a given event are claimed as proof that free will is bunk.
Thats not the reason to deny free will. It's not only that they are possible, but that they are possible with all the other elements in the event being the same.
Unfortunately, proper science* requires there at least two possible outcomes in any given study. So taking a binary choice (red or blue shirt) and claiming that both shirts prove your point means the example is unfalsifiable and thus invalid. At this point one might as well invoke Descartes' demon.
There are, IMHO, two misconceptions in this. First, it assumes that I'm posing a scientific framework of study of free will, rather than a philosophical framework, specially since my objection revolves around logical consistency, rather than empirical lack/support of evidence. It's unwise to study a philosophical problem of logic using the limitations, assumptions and frameworks of science. It would be akin to study theories of morality using scientific studies, it hardly gets you anywhere. If one uses logic, and one shows that "if A, then B---> B----> Therefore A" it doesn't allow for any other possibility, however, it's logically valid.
The second misconception is that it isn't the point that both choises prove my point; it's more than there are just two possibilities ( the decision is repeated or is changed), so accepting this fact proves my point. The though experiment can be falsified of course: you just need to prove there can be a third possibility, that isn't either determinism or randomness. So it's not an impossible or stacked task in a scientific experiment, it's a philosophical though experiment in logical consistency and coherence. Showing that A and not-A don't allow for free will already proves by logic standards that free will it's impossible, since logically A and not-A are the only logical possibilities.
You might as well invoke Descartes Demon, but that hardly would show a third possibility is logically possible.
I agree with this. Free-will skeptics can almost be counted on to eventually bring up the "heads I win tails you loose" vignette, in the exact same fashion that they complain woosters bring up the "why is there something rather than nothing" question.
It's only a "heads I win, tails you loose" scenario if you assume that there is only randomness and determinism as outcomes. If you disagree, then please explain me how and what would be the nature of this alledged third scenario. You must just as well that the claim "All deciminals of Pi are between 0 and 9" is a "heads I win tails you loose" situation, because no matter what number one get, it will be 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. If those are the only possibilities, it's not me who is stacking the issue, but reality itself.