Print
In honour of Dan Dennett
by Richard Dawkins
Speech in honour of Dan Dennett, presenting him with the Richard Dawkins Award for 2007 at the Crystal City conference of the Atheist Alliance International
Watch the video of this presentation here
Dan Dennett is a year younger than me, almost to the day. But I must admit that I have grown to think of him as a sort of intellectual elder brother. Since the deaths of Bill Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, I have been rather short of intellectual heroes to consult on difficult questions. Thank goodness we still have Dan Dennett. A year or so ago, it seemed that it might be a close run thing. I remember the shock followed by deep gloom that was cast over a large group of people in a New York theatre, when we were informed that Dan had collapsed and was undergoing emergency surgery which seemed - or so we were informed - unlikely to succeed. Heroic surgery to save an intellectual hero, not just a national treasure but a world treasure, at least to the world of the mind.
Many of you will have read the stirring testimonial that he wrote while he was in recovery. Actually called 'Thank Goodness'. It was widely published all over the internet, and was read out to those gathered in San Diego for the Beyond Belief conference. In it Dan mentioned his religious friends who had prayed for his recovery. He was touched by their efforts on his behalf, and he chose to interpret their words as meaning that they had been thinking of him. But he added:
Dan considered the impulse he might have felt to say 'Thank God' for his recovery. He asked himself whether his near death experience had been some kind of epiphany. I find his response to this so stirring that I again want to read it out:
I think you can see why Dan Dennett is my intellectual hero.
He is one of today's most distinguished philosophers, but among philosophers I would describe him as a scientist's philosopher. Many philosophers call themselves philosophers of science. But rather few of them take the trouble to learn much science, to immerse themselves in the scientific literature, to talk to working scientists and understand what makes them tick. One of the things that strikes me about reading Dan's books is how much science I learn from them. New science, new experimental results, fascinating scientific research, often still unpublished but which Dan knows about because he keeps his ear to the scientific ground and travels to visit laboratories, where is he always an honoured guest.
He is, indeed, a scientist as much as he is a philosopher, and he is also a superb explainer. Where other philosophers are mainly interested in showing off how clever they are to their colleagues, Dan really really wants to be understood. He seems to make no distinction between a book written for lay people and a book written for professional philosophers, and this is something I also aspire to when writing for professional scientists. Clarity is clarity, and it doesn't matter who you are writing for. There should be no need to write separate 'popular' books which dumb down the books that are written for professionals.
Dan thinks long and hard, not only about the philosophy itself but about the best way to explain it. He is a great coiner of phrases, an inventive deviser of metaphors, a vivid painter of mental images. 'Intuition pump' is one of his phrases, and it well describes exactly what he does when he is explaining something difficult to his readers. His celebrated lecture, 'Where am I?' is a tour de force of the explainer's art, combining comedy and high drama with the usual weapons of the lecturer. Notions like 'skyhook' and 'crane', the 'Cartesian theater', the 'Library of Mendel', 'Universal Acid', all these are superb intuition pumps, crafted to assist the reader to accompany him on an exciting mental adventure.
He is a leading thinker in a wide range of important philosophical topics, including philosophy of mind, the problem of free will, consciousness, evolution, and of course religion. Breaking the Spell is a pivotal contribution to the rather exhilarating revival which secularism is enjoying at the moment.
In all these fields, as I said, I look up to him as an intellectual hero. Elder brother may be, but also dynamic enfant terrible of the mind, and there is no paradox in the contrast. It is a huge pleasure and honour to me to present this award to Dan, and the fact that the award is in my name redoubles the pleasure and quadruples the honour.
Watch the video of this presentation here
Dan Dennett is a year younger than me, almost to the day. But I must admit that I have grown to think of him as a sort of intellectual elder brother. Since the deaths of Bill Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, I have been rather short of intellectual heroes to consult on difficult questions. Thank goodness we still have Dan Dennett. A year or so ago, it seemed that it might be a close run thing. I remember the shock followed by deep gloom that was cast over a large group of people in a New York theatre, when we were informed that Dan had collapsed and was undergoing emergency surgery which seemed - or so we were informed - unlikely to succeed. Heroic surgery to save an intellectual hero, not just a national treasure but a world treasure, at least to the world of the mind.
Many of you will have read the stirring testimonial that he wrote while he was in recovery. Actually called 'Thank Goodness'. It was widely published all over the internet, and was read out to those gathered in San Diego for the Beyond Belief conference. In it Dan mentioned his religious friends who had prayed for his recovery. He was touched by their efforts on his behalf, and he chose to interpret their words as meaning that they had been thinking of him. But he added:
I am not joking when I say that I have had to forgive my friends who said that they were PRAYING for me. I have resisted the temptation to respond "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" I feel about this the same way I would feel if one of them said "I just paid a voodoo doctor to cast a spell for your health." What a gullible waste of money that could have been spent on more important projects! Don't expect me to be grateful, or even indifferent. I do appreciate the affection and generosity of spirit that motivated you, but wish you had found a more reasonable way of expressing it.
Dan considered the impulse he might have felt to say 'Thank God' for his recovery. He asked himself whether his near death experience had been some kind of epiphany. I find his response to this so stirring that I again want to read it out:
Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean THANK GOODNESS! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now.
To whom, then, do I owe a debt of gratitude? To the cardiologist who has kept me alive and ticking for years, and who swiftly and confidently rejected the original diagnosis of nothing worse than pneumonia. To the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, and the perfusionist, who kept my systems going for many hours under daunting circumstances. To the dozen or so physician assistants, and to nurses and physical therapists and x-ray technicians and a small army of phlebotomists so deft that you hardly know they are drawing your blood, and the people who brought the meals, kept my room clean, did the mountains of laundry generated by such a messy case, wheel-chaired me to x-ray, and so forth. These people came from Uganda, Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, the Philippines, Croatia, Russia, China, Korea, India - and the United States, of course - and I have never seen more impressive mutual respect, as they helped each other out and checked each other's work. But for all their teamwork, this local gang could not have done their jobs without the huge background of contributions from others. I remember with gratitude my late friend and Tufts colleague, physicist Allan Cormack, who shared the Nobel Prize for his invention of the c-t scanner. Allan - you have posthumously saved yet another life, but who's counting? The world is better for the work you did. Thank goodness. Then there is the whole system of medicine, both the science and the technology, without which the best-intentioned efforts of individuals would be roughly useless. So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past and present, of Science, Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and all the other institutions of science and medicine that keep churning out improvements, detecting and correcting flaws.
I think you can see why Dan Dennett is my intellectual hero.
He is one of today's most distinguished philosophers, but among philosophers I would describe him as a scientist's philosopher. Many philosophers call themselves philosophers of science. But rather few of them take the trouble to learn much science, to immerse themselves in the scientific literature, to talk to working scientists and understand what makes them tick. One of the things that strikes me about reading Dan's books is how much science I learn from them. New science, new experimental results, fascinating scientific research, often still unpublished but which Dan knows about because he keeps his ear to the scientific ground and travels to visit laboratories, where is he always an honoured guest.
He is, indeed, a scientist as much as he is a philosopher, and he is also a superb explainer. Where other philosophers are mainly interested in showing off how clever they are to their colleagues, Dan really really wants to be understood. He seems to make no distinction between a book written for lay people and a book written for professional philosophers, and this is something I also aspire to when writing for professional scientists. Clarity is clarity, and it doesn't matter who you are writing for. There should be no need to write separate 'popular' books which dumb down the books that are written for professionals.
Dan thinks long and hard, not only about the philosophy itself but about the best way to explain it. He is a great coiner of phrases, an inventive deviser of metaphors, a vivid painter of mental images. 'Intuition pump' is one of his phrases, and it well describes exactly what he does when he is explaining something difficult to his readers. His celebrated lecture, 'Where am I?' is a tour de force of the explainer's art, combining comedy and high drama with the usual weapons of the lecturer. Notions like 'skyhook' and 'crane', the 'Cartesian theater', the 'Library of Mendel', 'Universal Acid', all these are superb intuition pumps, crafted to assist the reader to accompany him on an exciting mental adventure.
He is a leading thinker in a wide range of important philosophical topics, including philosophy of mind, the problem of free will, consciousness, evolution, and of course religion. Breaking the Spell is a pivotal contribution to the rather exhilarating revival which secularism is enjoying at the moment.
In all these fields, as I said, I look up to him as an intellectual hero. Elder brother may be, but also dynamic enfant terrible of the mind, and there is no paradox in the contrast. It is a huge pleasure and honour to me to present this award to Dan, and the fact that the award is in my name redoubles the pleasure and quadruples the honour.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 103 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #76762 by JemyM on October 7, 2007 at 6:47 am
Dan is a deeply inspiring individual. Other Comments by JemyM
3. Comment #76763 by shaunfletcher on October 7, 2007 at 6:47 am
Having been extremely ill, a complete shock, and having my life saved by (and only by) modenr medical techniques and practices, I find his comments so touchingly familiar.I have thanked, in person where possible and inside where not, every doctor who learnt, studied and worked, every nurse, every technician, drug chemist, researcher, and my sheer luck at being born at the time where all the arts of science and civilisation have allowed this to be.
Without CAT scans, advanced heart drugs and other pharmaceuticals, clinical practices advances, surgical techniques etc I would be dead at 39. Thank you world.
The amazing thing to me is how few people I saw being treated seemed to have thanks for anyone or anything, and how many healthcare workers and doctors were shocked to be thanked with real sincerity.
People take it all for granted and thank their silly god for nothing.
Other Comments by shaunfletcher
4. Comment #76764 by Russell Blackford on October 7, 2007 at 6:50 am
"Think where man's glory most begins and ends,And say my glory was I had such friends."
-- William Butler Yeats, "The Municipal Gallery Re-Visited"
(I think Daniel Dennett could say the same as Yeats, after a speech like that.)
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
5. Comment #76765 by Treehorn on October 7, 2007 at 6:56 am
Very touching. Dan Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and scientist, and the praise is definitely well-deserved. Other Comments by Treehorn
6. Comment #76769 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 7:17 am
Having just completed Dans "Breaking the Spell" I can endorse this whole heartedly. I frequently point out to theists, that the only reason we are having a conversation at all, the only reason those of us over 30 are even alive, is directly because of science. Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
7. Comment #76770 by Northern Bright on October 7, 2007 at 7:20 am
I agree with all the comments above. Wonderful quotes from Dan Dennett in Richard's speech, and topped and tailed with such evident sincerity and humility. shaunfletcher I'm glad things turned out the right way for you, and agree wholeheartedly about the lack of thanks for medical staff. My mother spent the last month of her life in an NHS hospital, where she was not only nursed but genuinely cared for by an amazing team of staff, who sat with her, hugged her, chatted with her, rubbed handcream into her dried out skin, and were 100% honest with her about her condition at every turn; even the emergency doctor who'd admitted her in the first place and no longer had any formal role in her care popped by in his break to see how she was getting on. From the most senior consultant to the car park attendant, I didn't encounter a single member of staff at that hospital who wasn't 100% committed to looking after both her and us, her family. I can honestly say it turned what could have been a harrowing experience into a rather beautiful one. Yet when I made a point of thanking them and telling them how much it had meant to me, it was clear that they were genuinely taken aback. One of them actually said that they normally only ever got to hear complaints. How sad.
I have been reading some of the "flea" books recently and have been struck by the small-mindedness of them, the lack of warmth, the lack of humanity, the sheer meanness. Returning with some relief to the writings of Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger and Christopher Hitchens, I find them by contrast full of a zest for life, a generosity of spirit, a genuine and full humanity, a questing spirit of enquiry and a sense of adventure. And the speech above encapsulates all of that, of course.
I say "thank goodness" for intelligent, generous, humble, invigorating, inspiring, secular humanists. The world would be a much poorer place without them.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
8. Comment #76771 by Canuck#1 on October 7, 2007 at 7:20 am
Reading this tribute actually made me "teary eyed"...both because of the tribute itself (thank you Richard)...and because of my feelings for Dan...I finished his book a couple of months ago...and it affected me more than any of the others...not because of its content, but because of its style..it was like I was sitting down with a friend, enjoying a chat about things important to both of us...I look forward to more..best of health Dan Other Comments by Canuck#1
9. Comment #76775 by Crazymalc on October 7, 2007 at 8:04 am
Dan Dennett is a personal hero of mine also.When I read the topic of this post I thought that is was going to be a In Memoriam.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea was quite literally a life changing book for me. I was Born Again Boy and become Agnostic Boy after some personal tragedies. Dennett's book cemented my Atheism and allowed me to get on with life. Still scared, but at least I had the truth on my side.
Thank goodness for Dan Dennett
Other Comments by Crazymalc
10. Comment #76777 by Teratornis on October 7, 2007 at 8:21 am
We have some things to feel thankful for. Imagine how much more thankful we will feel when science figures out how to make everyone as smart as Dan Dennett. Other Comments by Teratornis
11. Comment #76778 by flyingscot on October 7, 2007 at 8:22 am
Brilliant! Other Comments by flyingscot
12. Comment #76782 by Zakie Chan on October 7, 2007 at 8:37 am
Excellent!Its so true about Dennetts clarity in writing. I recently read "Kinds of Minds", and although its a small book, I was really intimidated to read it. I thought it would be completely over my head, and that I wouldnt understand anything. But no, it was incredibly well written, and absolutly fascinating. He truly is a superb explainer of complex topics.
Other Comments by Zakie Chan
13. Comment #76788 by Clappers on October 7, 2007 at 9:06 am
Of the four recent atheist books, TGD, The End of Faith, God Isn't Great and Breaking the Spell, I actually found Dan's book the best, in that it gives us a way of moving from where we are, to where humanity needs to be.Darwins Dangerous Idea is a great book, in the last chapter, he let's his anger with dogmatism shine through.
I have been lucky enough to see him debate on 2 occasions, again very polite.
How many of us would now be dead without anaesthetic, and medical science, what a priveledge to be living now.
Good bye faith, hello critical thinking
Other Comments by Clappers
14. Comment #76791 by obscured by clouds on October 7, 2007 at 9:29 am
That was one of the best introductions that I have ever heard. I'm glad I was able to see it first hand. Other Comments by obscured by clouds
15. Comment #76792 by Zakie Chan on October 7, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hey Clappers, do you know of any links to audio/video or transripts of Dennett's debates? Other Comments by Zakie Chan
16. Comment #76794 by obscured by clouds on October 7, 2007 at 9:34 am
We did video it. I do not know when it will be available. Other Comments by obscured by clouds
17. Comment #76814 by zenmite on October 7, 2007 at 11:03 am
I read a book called "The Mind's I" by Dan Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter nearly 20 years ago. I enjoyed the book so much that I went on to read everything I could find by both authors. Just bought Hofstader's "I am a Strange Loop". I was also intrigued by one of the essays in 'The Mind's I' by a scientist called Dawkins. This led me to read his works as well. I still love Dennett's writings, especially his firm stand against mind-body dualism / cartesian theatre thinking. Great tribute. Other Comments by zenmite
18. Comment #76819 by Faith Collapsing on October 7, 2007 at 11:24 am
A well-deserved congratulations to Dan Dennett! He is indeed one of the most important intellectuals of our time. I recently read his book Breaking the Spell, and found it to be well-thought-out and well explained. Darwin's Dangerous idea is now among the books on my "must read soon" list. Dawkins is right saying that Dennett is a great explainer. It seems from his writing that Dennett does not merely stay in the Ivory Tower, but realizes that there are plenty of important and intelligent people outside of it as well. Bravo to Dr. Dennett! A Philosophy major myself, I couldn't be more proud! Other Comments by Faith Collapsing
19. Comment #76824 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:42 am
That is a lovely speech by RD. I suspect made easier to write because the quotes from Dennett are so inspiring and deserve repetition.
Well done Dan.
Other Comments by Corylus
20. Comment #76826 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 11:44 am
From listening to many of his lectures and interviews, I know that Daniel Dennett is indeed a great explainer. From reading articles by him I have been impressed by the sreangth and validity of his arguments. Dennett almost single handedly saves philisophy as a whole from a having a very bad image in the eyes of many scientists and rational minded people. Deffinately a deserving recipiant for such an award.Other Comments by SilentMike
21. Comment #76829 by Tumara Baap on October 7, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I am one of those if an argument isn't scientifically grounded, it's lacking in strength and not likely to withstand varied challenges and the test of time. I appreciate Hitchen's literary flair, but Dawkins was always King to me. Until I read the above endorsement, I'd never have considered reading Dennet. That his philosophy pivots on scientific reason is refreshing and encouraging. He is at the top of my must-read list now.Other Comments by Tumara Baap
22. Comment #76832 by Duff on October 7, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Having survived 6 decades plus with nary a personal hero in sight, it is nice at last to have several; Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, my intellectual heroes and Hitchens, my nasty, evil twin.May the teapot protect them!
Other Comments by Duff
23. Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Let's see what happens if I write something critical about Daniel Dennett here."Darwins Dangerous Idea is a great book"
No, it's not. It is filled with mistakes and contains high amounts of unfair polemic against Gould, see his own review:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html
Further, one can't quite evade the impression that Dennett just about takes over everything Dawkins says. He has taken over memetics, his view on religion and even his ultradarwinism that hardly any evolutionary biologist except Dawkins shares. And he is not really that important as a philosopher, merely as a popularizer.
I'm especially anxious to hear your arguments against Gould's review.
Other Comments by The author
24. Comment #76863 by Jack Rawlinson on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm
It's nice to see these AAI speeches gradually making it to the web. Not as nice as it was to be there, of course. :-)I enjoyed Dan's speech too, although it started slowly and featured quite a lot of material from "Breaking the Spell", I found I was becoming more and more engrossed without really noticing it was happening. That's a sign of a capable public speaker.
"The author": I can't comment about "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" as I haven't read it yet, but I think you grossly overstate the case regarding Dennett "taking over" Dawkins' ideas. Lots of people share the ideas of other scientists and thinkers. It isn't uncommon, you know. Memetics is a useful concept, so people use it. Newton's laws are useful too, and lots of people use them. We don't say they've taken them over though, do we?
"Breaking the Spell" was interesting and thought-provoking, and I particularly appreciated the fact that it came at belief from a different angle to the frontal assaults of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. If I wanted to be criticial of it at all I'd say there was a slight tendency to meander and repeat, but that would be nitpicking.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
25. Comment #76864 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm
23. Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pmLet's see what happens if I write something critical about Daniel Dennett here.
Blasphemer!!! By the beard of Dennett, the vulcan stare of Harris and the juggernaut of Hitchens wit you are thrice curs'd.
Not once, not twice, but thrice curs'd!!! Take that heathen renegade, and now kneel at the feet of the great Dawkins, feel his polite yet skillful evisceration wash over you, and beg for the forgivness of Atheism's glorious Quatronidigity.
How was that?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
26. Comment #76866 by xkcd on October 7, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I'm especially anxious to hear your arguments against Gould's review
puntuated equalibrium is a silly false controversy, the other two points gould brings up are both up for debate and he is really just criticising Dennett for coming down on the 'wrong' side, ie. the one Gould disagrees with. Also he is straw-manning Dennett with his claims about directionality(actually, upon further reading, most of his arguements in this area seem to be against ridiculous strawmen).
Other Comments by xkcd
27. Comment #76870 by Clappers on October 7, 2007 at 2:04 pm
If writing or research are convincing, why not accept the views?Another writer I would recommend it Steven Pinker
How the Mind Works
The Blank Slate
are great books, and he also veers towards ultradarwinism
I have just started reading his latest "The Stuff of Thought" good so far and I am seeing his next Monday at his book launch, can't wait
Other Comments by Clappers
28. Comment #76875 by Elli on October 7, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Some comic relief perhaps...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU
Other Comments by Elli
29. Comment #76876 by Northern Bright on October 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Some comic relief perhaps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU
Lovely! I'd never seen that one!
Other Comments by Northern Bright
30. Comment #76880 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 2:49 pm
23. Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pmI'm especially anxious to hear your arguments against Gould's review.
I havn't read the aforementioned book as I'm very lazy about reading books in english. This lazyness, luckily, does not extend to articles. I have read the article in question before, as well as another one like it where Gould charged at Dennett with the same basic glee. I've also read the responces of Dennett and Steven Pinker to said articles. My impression was that this was all a bit of a mud-fight and not much more. The late Stephen Gould loved this stuff. As you already sent us off site I won't hesitate to do the same. Better you read Dennett's own reply to gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
as well as Pinker's reply to the article you linked to.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1070
Have fun.
Other Comments by SilentMike
31. Comment #76883 by Janus on October 7, 2007 at 3:08 pm
The author,don't take this the wrong way, but you really sound like someone who only (or mostly) knows about Gould's side of the argument, and whose knowledge about Dawkins' and Dennett's side is based on Gould's summary of what Dawkins and Dennett think.
While I don't know enough about evolution to categorically say "Gould is wrong, Dennett is right", I've read books and articles from both, and it is clear that Gould's criticism of those he calls the ultradarwinists is full of logical fallacies and ad hominems, and he is obviously misrepresenting his opponents' views.
May I suggest you read these articles:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1096
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1703
Other Comments by Janus
32. Comment #76887 by eirik on October 7, 2007 at 3:31 pm
9. Comment #76775 by Crazymalc on October 7, 2007 at 8:04 am
When I read the topic of this post I thought that is was going to be a In Memoriam.
Me too! Phew! This article could use a new title...
Anyway, I gladly join the choir in saluting the life and accomplishments (so far) of Dan Dennett. A true great!
Other Comments by eirik
33. Comment #76889 by ksskidude on October 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I say Thank Goodness for men like Dennett and Dawkins, and for people like all of us on this web site. I say Thank Goodness, because if it were not for like minded non-believing people, our world would have no goodness, only suffering and pain. Other Comments by ksskidude
34. Comment #76893 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm
31. Comment #76883 by JanusJanus. I do belive that you firsy link contains the exact same inforemation as my first link.
Good idea linking to John Maynard Smith's review. I remember liking that one.
Other Comments by SilentMike
35. Comment #76894 by riddlemethis on October 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Elli thanks for the link! Gorgeously appropriate to the direction the conversation took & a wonderful reminder of my days in the Monty Python Club at school.I have only recently come across Dan's work & Breaking the Spell is one of the books I have on the go right now - wonderful stuff, exquisitely explained. Thanks Goodness he is still with us.
Other Comments by riddlemethis
36. Comment #76900 by Zaphod on October 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I very nice speech from Richard Dawkins. I have 4 of Daniel Dennett's books and every time I have seen him on-line giving talks or interviews he has always seemed like a very likeable person. Difficult not to like really. He enjoys the work he does and it shines through in his books and his talks. Other Comments by Zaphod
37. Comment #76902 by xkcd on October 7, 2007 at 4:52 pm
reading these sources, i'm very dissapointed in Steven Jay Gould. It seems like he wants to be an iconoclast so badly that he has to strawman mainstream evolutionary theory to make his very slightly different ideas seem revolutionary Other Comments by xkcd
38. Comment #76905 by hakija on October 7, 2007 at 5:01 pm
It's inspiring to hear from someone who can think rationally (even with a life threatening illness) trust human innovation and the care of the doctors who saved his life. It makes me think: is praying for many believers a knee-jerk response under tremendous anxiety. All of his friends praying for him had the right intent, but do many just say this or attempt to pray out of a conditioned response? I think so.
Other Comments by hakija
39. Comment #76907 by mmurray on October 7, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I would encourage those of you who haven't read Gould to forget about punctuated equilibria and the argument with Dawkins over NOMA and go and read some of his essays or his books such as "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History". You can find some of the essays on-line without too much trouble.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
40. Comment #76910 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I would encourage those of you who haven't read Gould to forget about punctuated equilibria and the argument with Dawkins over NOMA and go and read some of his essays or his books such as "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History".
Personally, I would encourage considerable caution about accepting the interpretations Gould presents. To quote John Maynard Smith, Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory".
Other Comments by steve99
41. Comment #76912 by mmurray on October 7, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Personally, I would encourage considerable caution about accepting the interpretations Gould presents.
That wasn't really my point. He has been dead now for 5 years so anything he has written is clearly out of date in terms of what is current thinking. I am not personally that interested in arguments about the exact workings of evolutionary theory. But if people don't read Gould because of these controversies they are missing some wonderful science writing. I don't think he is wrong about: (a) the contingent nature of history, (b) the depth of geological time, (c) the myriad of examples of bad design that support evolution by natural selection, (d) the fact that creationism is a load of unscientific rubbish or (e) the fact that evolutionary theory does not support racism. If you want a book on science and racism and the `Bell Curve' farce his Mismeasure of Man is brilliant.
I note also in that review of Dennett's book by Maynard Smith he comments on the excellence of Gould's essays as distinct from his place in the modern evolutionary theory community. The former point was the one I was trying to make.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
42. Comment #76917 by Bueller_007 on October 7, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I rather think Robert Wright a bit of a bell-end, but I might as well toss his anti-Gould contribution into the ring as well.http://www.slate.com/id/2016/
"I argued, basically, that Gould is a fraud. He has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest--not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism."
Other Comments by Bueller_007
43. Comment #76967 by rationalteacher on October 8, 2007 at 1:31 am
Some rather nice things have been written here. I would endorse the reviews of 'Breaking the Spell', which I personally felt was the most impressive of all the recent books from the 'big four'.The most wonderful thing of all though, for me, is that Daniel Dennett actually looks like God. That must chafe a little on the average faith-head, surely?
Other Comments by rationalteacher
44. Comment #76972 by MIDVALCRE on October 8, 2007 at 1:56 am
What a nice tribute. Still have yet to read Breaking the Spell, and can't wait. Yes thank goodness indeed for people who can put into words my exact thoughts. If only I could explain these ideas as clearly.Other Comments by MIDVALCRE
45. Comment #76992 by SilentMike on October 8, 2007 at 4:48 am
Regardless of his personallity, I think that the late Steven Jay Gould was a fantastic hitorian of science. Some of his essays on the subject are very interesting and informing. Also, he wrote quite a few intiguing evolutionary stories about different creatures in our world.However. I find his personal philosophy to be confused and confusing. When looking for the right angle to look at evolution as a whole I strongly reccomend Dawkins. Dawkins writes it clearer in the points where the two agree, and in my opinion more representative of the current state of evolutionary theory on the points where they don't.
That said, I wouldn't reccomend denying oneself of reading some of Gould's essay books. Especially the later ones.
Other Comments by SilentMike
46. Comment #76993 by stag on October 8, 2007 at 4:48 am
Clappers Comment #76870Another writer I would recommend it Steven Pinker
How the Mind Works
The Blank Slate
Nooooo!
Pinker is best when he sticks to language theory, but his evolutionary psychology stuff is just emabarrassing.
"How the Mind Works", in particular, might work as a piece of speculative fiction, but as a work of popular science it is an absolute travesty. "We don't need to know how the brain works in order to figure out how the mind works"... Just what the hell are you on about, Pinker?!
Other Comments by stag
47. Comment #76994 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 5:10 am
An interesting opinion about "Consciousness explained" can be found onhttp://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_i.html Prof. LLinas is a prominent neuroscientist whom I admire very much. He is the author of "I of the Vortex. From neurons to self " MIT Press 2001-2002. This book deserves reading.
Other Comments by John Desclin
48. Comment #76997 by SilentMike on October 8, 2007 at 5:44 am
Another writer I would recommend it Steven Pinker
How the Mind Works
The Blank Slate
Nooooo!
I think everyone who says we always agree on everything should get a link to this page. I don't know what your credentials are on this subject. It is quite possible that they are better than mine (I'm a computer scientist. This is not really my field). I however found "The blank slate" to be a very good popular science book. If anything I think it is too heavy and "sciencey" (Dawkins' books read much better). I think Pinker basically Eviscerates the blank slate approach. He does it thoroughly, making sure not to miss a citation or a subject.
Yes, there some parts that are longer than others, and yes this is more speculative than some other popular science books. But it rather has to be, as it deals with a subject touching on the social sciences. All in all I think what Steven Pinker is doing in evolutionary psychology is helpful.
Other Comments by SilentMike
49. Comment #77002 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 6:17 am
I just tried to post a comment which was rejected as spam, but I am not familiar enough with the present site, so I do not understand the reason of the rejection. I suspect it might have been due to the fact that the address I referred to in my text was in the form of a link. I thus try again, and I give the address in "normal" format, so I would not be suspected of spamming! I apologise for unwittingly causing trouble.In the rejected post, I mentioned the interesting opinion about the book "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett., which was expressed in an interview of reknown neurophysiologist Rodolfo Llinas. Dr Llinas whom I admire is the author of a beautiful book entitled "I of the Vortex. From Neurons to self" (MIT Press) which I find
highly enlightening and not enough advertised. It is also the book of an empiricist and monist (atheist).
The link which I mentioned is: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_ihtml#daniel
I don't see any reason why the post in its present form should be rejected. Should it be rejected however, I would greatly appreciate if someone could explain things to me, poor ignoramus that I am! ;^)
Other Comments by John Desclin
50. Comment #77005 by bluebird on October 8, 2007 at 6:34 am
Hi, your link won't work for me, but this does:http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas.html
rationalteacher, some think Dan Dennet resembles Santa Claus and/or Darwin :)
There are more articles/comments about Mr. Dennett in the 'Archives' section of this website :)
Other Comments by bluebird
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #76760 by Shaker on October 7, 2007 at 6:36 am
Other Comments by Shaker