Saturday, March 10, 2007 | Science : Interviews | print version

Print | Comments |

Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview

TheTech.org, Daniel Dennett

Thanks to Ben Hope for the links.

An interview with Daniel Dennett at the Future of Science Conference in Venice, Italy September 2006.

Part 1
What is it about Darwin's idea that is so dangerous?

Part 2
You've described the design of natural selection as "brilliant" but "mindless." Can you explain?

Part 3
How do you explain evolution to skeptics? How can you convince them? Can you?

Part 4
You said earlier that you think secular institutions are failing us? Do you include museums?

Part 5
In discussing your book, Breaking the Spell, you've said that part of what the book does is to "reveal how the magicians do their tricks" when it comes to organized religion. Can you elaborate?

Part 6
You've talked about teaching a course on World Religions in public schools. What do you think that would accomplish?

Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 15 of 15 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #25161 by uzi on March 10, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Thanks for posting these. I enjoyed listening to them all.

Other Comments by uzi

2. Comment #25162 by solera on March 10, 2007 at 2:56 pm

The expected clarity, and an unexpected candidate for a collective term - "sifters". I like it. (from part 2) It's definitely a 'new' term, with little baggage or pretention. Any other atheist/non-theists that like this term ?

"What's your religion ?" - I'm a sifter. We let all the available information and facts flow through the best filters, and look at the results.

Not as controversial as 'bright', yet more positive than 'atheist' ??

Regardless, fun stuff.

Other Comments by solera

3. Comment #25166 by Liveliest Crib on March 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm

solera on March 10, 2007 at 2:56 pm,

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it myself when Dennet used the term. In fact, I didn't even catch it. I had to go back and watch part 2 after reading your post.

I do like the term, since it captures the ability to evaluate information as it comes in. So much of the problem about empirical claims, when they become as sophisticated as science has enabled them to become, is that people have no idea how to evaluate them for their truth. In our culture, at least, people seem to like the idea of "thinking for themselves," but they don't know how to think in the first place. They know how to do rote memorization, but thinking for themselves has become Stephen Colbert's Truthiness -- if it feels right in your gut, that's what you go with; that's what's true.

Whereas "Bright" has never caught on -- for many reasons, I suppose -- and "atheist," and even "skeptic" begin from a negative standpoint. That is, they start by telling you what they are NOT -- what they DO NOT believe.

It's be interesting to see if "Sifting" or "Siftism" catches on. Learning not just about the idea of sifting through information on one's own to come to reasoned conclusions, but how to do so successfully, and avoid the pitfalls of nonsense. It need not be negative nor hostile. It can be an entirely positive word without being antagonistic.

I like it. Perhaps we should start a website of "Siftism." :)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

4. Comment #25173 by James Carroll on March 10, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Very interesting stuff from Mr. Dennett; I enjoyed it a lot.

And the idea of "sifting" through ideas is old indeed, but attaching the word "Sifting" to it might help it catch on.

Interesting...

Other Comments by James Carroll

5. Comment #25180 by Spinoza on March 10, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I'm a "Proof Reader" of religions, not a sifter. :)

Other Comments by Spinoza

6. Comment #25185 by Duff on March 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm

You guys go ahead and "sift". I've sifted all my life and found all religions intellectually irrelevant. Now, I'm more inclined to be a decimator. A pox on all your religions.

Other Comments by Duff

7. Comment #25191 by J Steven on March 10, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I aspire to be as well-spoken, understated, yet (devastatingly? I'd like to see him go head to head with some of these Super-yahoos we've been encountering) effective as Mr. Dennett. In fact, half as eloquent would suffice.

Being able to calmly throw out gems like "the enforced ignorance of the young" (absolutely accurate) is what I like most about him. Sometimes you need the strong stuff balanced out by the friendly, smiling but equally on-point approach to get the fence-sitters.

Other Comments by J Steven

8. Comment #25248 by chauvinj on March 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

The 'sifters' term was taken out of context. Dennett clearly is not endorsing this term as a substitute for 'atheism'. He refers to natural selection as a sifting process.

Other Comments by chauvinj

9. Comment #25252 by Liveliest Crib on March 11, 2007 at 10:10 am

chauvinj on March 11, 2007 at 9:29 am
The 'sifters' term was taken out of context. Dennett clearly is not endorsing this term as a substitute for 'atheism'. He refers to natural selection as a sifting process.

You're correct. I don't think anyone was saying that Dennet himself was suggesting the term. Solera was just picking up on a term he used in a different context. Dennet very much likes the term "Bright."

Duff on March 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm
You guys go ahead and "sift". I've sifted all my life and found all religions intellectually irrelevant. Now, I'm more inclined to be a decimator. A pox on all your religions.

What the? Most of the people on this blog (I presume) are atheists who have "sifted" all our lives. We're just looking for a meme to describe ourselves since "Bright" appears to be controversial. It's not like we've suddenly decided to subscribe to a religion.

Spinoza on March 10, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I'm a "Proof Reader" of religions, not a sifter. :)

Hee hee. ;)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

10. Comment #25272 by neander on March 11, 2007 at 2:46 pm

"Sifters" I like it! Sums us up nicely.

Other Comments by neander

11. Comment #25273 by crabsallover on March 11, 2007 at 2:50 pm

in Part 6 Prof. Dennett says "some religions are just benign, just wonderful ... some religions are just fine... These benign religions should be allowed to fluorish .. whilst the toxic religions should go extinct .. then we would be better of."

What aspects of religion or what religions are benign and don't hurt us at all?

Other Comments by crabsallover

12. Comment #25278 by Nails on March 11, 2007 at 4:00 pm

11. Comment #25273 by crabsallover on March 11, 2007 at 2:50 pm

in Part 6 Prof. Dennett says "some religions are just benign, just wonderful ... some religions are just fine... These benign religions should be allowed to fluorish .. whilst the toxic religions should go extinct .. then we would be better of."

What aspects of religion or what religions are benign and don't hurt us at all?

Religion never effected my scientific education....

Other Comments by Nails

13. Comment #25279 by perkyjay on March 11, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I've been known as an atheist for 63 years - I'm now approaching 79 - I'm afraid if I started calling myself a sifter, people would think I was suffering from dementia or something equally dreadful, like religion. It would take too long to explain.

Other Comments by perkyjay

14. Comment #25367 by Frostbit on March 12, 2007 at 4:05 pm

It's odd that 'sifting' also caught my ear once he said it. I like the term, I believe it it fits well with evolution.

Other Comments by Frostbit

15. Comment #25498 by BeyondBelief on March 13, 2007 at 7:45 pm

I've coined the terms "Stuffers and Stackers" to "sift" our belief systems and mental models.

I'm proud to be a Stacker, and you can visit this link to get a full background/explanation:

Stuffers andStackers

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

Reload Comments | Back to Top