Re: A hearing or a reading

From: Larry Moran (lamoran_at_bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca)
Date: 03/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:03 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:07:39 -0500 (EST),
Malcolm <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote
>>
>> FWIW, though I agree with most of Dennett's views, the book left
>> me rather nauseated. I think it stands as a good example of why
>> philosophy and biology rarely mix well. For example, I don't
>> think any biologist would ever have spent so much time rattling
>> on about "skyhooks".
>>
> My own feling is that Dennett is asking the right questions, but doesn't
> have the tools to provide answers.
> Asking the right question is vitally important in science or philosophy,
> maybe even more important than providing an answer.

Here are some of the questions Dennett could have asked but didn't.

1. Is natural selection the only mechnanism of evolution?

2. Can evolution really be reduced to an algorithm or is there a great deal
   of chance and contingency in evolution?

3. Is evolution really analogous to building a skyscrapper or does this
   convey a false impression of evolution as a goal oriented task?

> The "skyhook" question
> is in fact vital - if reductionism is true, then you may have "emergent
> properties", (like the Madelbrot set from a simple sequence of operations on
> a complex number), but you cannot posit any sort of organising principle or
> homunculus (a little man who sits in the brain looking at the cells of the
> visual cortex). Dennett is maybe not expressing himself as cogently as he
> might, but to see the issue as nothing but "rattling on" is to risk making
> your biology nothing more than glorified plumbing.

4. Is it too convenient to dismiss all your critics by claiming that they
   use skyhooks?

> On Gould - I think that if your ideas are rather confused, then it is
> extremely easy to accuse people of misrepresenting you.

Hmmm ... it is crystal clear that Dennett misunderstands everything that
Gould has ever said. Dennett's idea about Gould aren't "confused" - they are
dead wrong.

Larry Moran

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Gould Collection Coming Out
    ... That wasn't Lewontin or Gould saying that to you, ... makes it clear it is the biology he primarily objects to. ... There was a sharp exchange between Gould and Pinker (over Gould's ... evolution seemed to me to require the kind of hyper-evolution that was one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Darwin=92s_Dangerous_Idea=97No_Middle_G?==?windows-1252?Q?round?=
    ... "Dennett understands that every important idea and pattern of thought is ... does understand the logic of Intelligent Design. ... persons reject evolution because it "goes right to the heart of the most ... means the impossibility of any belief in God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution: Appeal to Tactics
    ... that Dennett is admitting that the beginning of the tree of life "just ... verify for them self by reading the quote posted in this message) the ... of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins false dichotomy fallacy.
    ... What is the formally established Theory of Evolution ... not in its first stated form by Darwin in the 19th century. ... and again with molecular biology). ... Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are ...
    (talk.origins)