I don't see many arguments in Wilkinson's article. All I see are assertions, spiced with a unsubtle comment that neuroscientists are fabricating their results.

I don't see many arguments in Wilkinson's article. All I see are assertions, spiced with a unsubtle comment that neuroscientists are fabricating their results. Neuroscience can shed light on the philosophical study of free will via empirical investigations, specifically the study of human brains. After all, if a philosopher wants to describe a property of reality, it must submit to empirical results. Philosophers can abstract away from reality if they wish, but they should come clean and rename themselves logicians.