contingence vs necessity as a criticism of Hard Determinism

So...libertarians argue that Hard Determinists have a flaw in their logic by not distinguishing between contingent and necessary statements. I get this bit. And I know what a contingent truth is and what a necessary one is...

I'm probably just being thick, but I don't understand why distinguishing between contingent and necessary truths undermines hard determinism. Where is it exactly that hard determinists use contingent truths instead of necessary ones?

Reply 1

chriztina27

right--
so contingent truths are basically demonstrating that everything can be proven wrong (a may run faster than b but doesnt mean that a will beat b in a race). so that means that libertarianism can also be proved wrong. it may seem like we have a free will because of the act of deliberation. i am going through thought processes to decide whether i want tea or coffee based on experience of what i prefer. it feels really real so there is a strong reason to believe free will is 'true'. BUT the libertarianist goes on to say its a contingent truth, we can never be certain if we have free will or are under an illusion.
then they go on to consider the truth proposed by a determanist. that is that all actions are pre-planned by cause and effect. we can predict that a badly brought up child will become aggresive which proves determanism. but this again is a contingent truth that can easily be miss predicted. lots of badly brought up children end up being well-moralled.
so the libertarianist then considers which contingent truth is more open for error? the determanist's truths. its hard to disagree with the fact that we experience the deciding process, with the fact that we can delibarate. the explanation, the contingent truth that determanists use to explain choice is weaker as its more open to error. therefore by default the hard determanist is
less convincing.

errrmmm ok i proper waffled, hope i made some kind of sense! let me know if there's any bits you didnt understanD!