Thanks for posting this Massimo. What a challenge it is to argue well by using Dennett's four suggestions. We are fortunate that his work leaves a lasting legacy to guide us in thinking well.
I was introduced to Dennet when my nephew noted I looked like him. I was then very busy in my career and ny leisure reading tied up with my surgical specialty and teaching reluctant residents to be skeptics and read articles carefully. Now my macula make reading difficult. Hitch, I enjoyed the discussion of he and George Packer on Orwell . When smart people discuss without rancor they give insight
That's a very nice article, Massimo, and you were fast - thanks :)
Some random observations from my side.
My first Dennett book was "Consciousness explained" which I should reread but is in many ways the most fascinating.
He wrote a second book on Free will together with Gregg Caruso, "Just deserts".
Dennett recently said in a podcast that he regretted the follow-up of "Darwin's dangerous idea". He didn't say it this explicitly but it seemed to me that he meant both the amount of effort involved in making and repeating his rather obvious point ("given our understanding of evolution, the need for the existence of a creator is gone") and the vitriol of the discussions.
Moreover, quite a number of newspaper headlines ran "Dennett, controversial atheists, dies" which understates everything else DD did. I rather like the frontpage "provocative thinker on free will, machines and consciousness" of one of the papers I read.
(side issue: among the four horsemen, Dennett comes out by far the best: Hitch was funny and literate but a bit shallow, and he died too young; Harris is completely lost in Islamophobia; and Dawkins, who's my hero bc of the Selfish gene and sequels, managed to destroy himself through all sorts of misogyny, misplaced nostalgia and more bs)
I agree with your assessment, he should have been remembered primarily as a deep thinker about evolution and consciousness, not just as an atheist.
As for the other three Horsemen, Hitch was first a Trotskyist then a supporter of Bush, I doubt one needs to add anything else.
Harris is confused on a number of issues, including free will (see Dennett's criticism of him in that respect) and the natural of morality (here is my review of The Moral Landscape: https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-02-02/#feature).
I have disagreed with Dawkins since The Selfish Gene. His view of evolution is extremely narrow and out of step with what the field has been doing for decades.
Hitch: not sure that that is a fair criticism. Some of his writing is just great. For sure, a raving mad as well. But a writer!
And though he was on board with baby Bush and his invasion, he got himself waterboarded because he wanted to be able to make a point. That takes guts.
Harris: The end of faith was a very nice book, IMO. After that he was disappointing. My impression of the moral landscape was a simplified version of utilitarianism (and simplified out of ignorance)(in the last para of your review, you say the same, more or less?).
That was a great review and your friend’s bestiality question, that’s wonderful.
Dawkins: “I have disagreed with Dawkins since The Selfish Gene.” As from the Selfish Gene or you disagree with things he wrote after the SG?
(btw, didn’t he publish the SG when you were 14 or so?)
I read the SG ca. 1990 and realised that biology is not just random facts, the way it had been taught in my secondary school (learn by heart the n steps of the human digestive system; make drawings of unicellulars etc.) but a real science …
(game theory with animals instead of war & markets!)
Have you got a link to a text explaining the contrast between Dawkins’s view and the consensus among contemporary biologists? Ideally one readable for a dilettante.
I also published a short criticism of Dawkins's selfish gene concept in Skeptical Inquirer, but the site seems to be down at the moment. I'll try again later.
It took forever to arrive here but I've finally got my hands on Sterelny ("Dawkins vs Gould") and read it cover-to-cover in one session - very nice. It explained quite some of the big puzzles. Thanks for the recommendation.
However, I thought you recommended Sterelny for me to see illustrate your statement that Dawkins is narrow/out of step but Serelny repeatedly contrasts Gould with orthodoxy, not Dawkins (you also wrote that Serelny seems biased in favour of Dawkins, true).
So: it hasn't at all made your point about Dawkins (a. narrow; b) out of line); could you try to post the link to your own article making that point?
Maurits, glad you enjoyed the Sternly book! But yes, I think Kim is biased in favor of Dawkins, and I think he's simply factually mistaken when he argues that Gould represents the orthodoxy in evolutionary biology.
Maurits, regarding Hitch: sure, it took guts, but in the service of the wrong cause, in my opinion. And of course I have no more sympathy for Trotskyism than for Bush...
Agreed on Harris.
Dawkins: yes, I was 12 when TSG came out! But later on I caught up with it. I don't disagree with Dawkins's books about explaining evolution for the general public. But TSG is often considered a major innovation, even cited in the primary literature, while in fact is a popularization of work done by Hamilton, Williams, and other major evolutionary biologists of the mid-20th century. And, as I said, it's very limited compared to the more expansive views on evolution put forth by Dawkins's arch-rival, Stephen Gould.
I'm about to pack for a short trip (going to the Wondrium studios in DC to begin recording a new course on Marcus's Meditations), but I'll look for some readings on the Dawkins-Gould controversy. More soon!
Thanks for this, Massimo. Dan Dennett was a big influence on my thinking over the years. Like you, I found his "elbow room" approach to free will very compelling. I just read the NY Times obituary, and I think they got his view of free will completely wrong. Their summary of it sounds more like Sam Harris than Dan Dennett.
I'm a huge fan of Dennett, particularly Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I'm sorry to hear of his passing, but we knew he was mortal, didn't we? Thank you for letting us know of his passing.
Massimo, thanks for this! It’s indeed an intro to Dennett for me, since I didn’t know about him before. Sounds like there might be some great reads waiting for me. :-)
Thanks for introducing Dennett, Massimo. He may have physically passed, but he left some of his mind behind to trace his journey of thought. He sounds like someone saying, “Don’t lose sight of the trees when you see the forest.” We must always keep in mind what we are thinking by how we are thinking. Consciousness and the why, and all the invisible “baggage” we carry with it are great questions being usually unseen. I don’t think much of the New York Times anymore. I’m just waiting for the attack on Stoicism
as an “-ism.” Maybe it’s a good cloaking device that it’s already attached. Reverse psychology. Maybe “Stoicientologism” will be coined and we’ll luminesce as quacks? 😊
I didn't realize he had died. I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea when I was young, and it was what put me on the path of leaving behind the beliefs I grew up with, and eventually to this, much later.
Thanks for posting this Massimo. What a challenge it is to argue well by using Dennett's four suggestions. We are fortunate that his work leaves a lasting legacy to guide us in thinking well.
I was introduced to Dennet when my nephew noted I looked like him. I was then very busy in my career and ny leisure reading tied up with my surgical specialty and teaching reluctant residents to be skeptics and read articles carefully. Now my macula make reading difficult. Hitch, I enjoyed the discussion of he and George Packer on Orwell . When smart people discuss without rancor they give insight
Dick, yes, Hitch could certainly be fun and insightful.
That's a very nice article, Massimo, and you were fast - thanks :)
Some random observations from my side.
My first Dennett book was "Consciousness explained" which I should reread but is in many ways the most fascinating.
He wrote a second book on Free will together with Gregg Caruso, "Just deserts".
Dennett recently said in a podcast that he regretted the follow-up of "Darwin's dangerous idea". He didn't say it this explicitly but it seemed to me that he meant both the amount of effort involved in making and repeating his rather obvious point ("given our understanding of evolution, the need for the existence of a creator is gone") and the vitriol of the discussions.
Moreover, quite a number of newspaper headlines ran "Dennett, controversial atheists, dies" which understates everything else DD did. I rather like the frontpage "provocative thinker on free will, machines and consciousness" of one of the papers I read.
(side issue: among the four horsemen, Dennett comes out by far the best: Hitch was funny and literate but a bit shallow, and he died too young; Harris is completely lost in Islamophobia; and Dawkins, who's my hero bc of the Selfish gene and sequels, managed to destroy himself through all sorts of misogyny, misplaced nostalgia and more bs)
Maurits, you're welcome! 😃
I agree with your assessment, he should have been remembered primarily as a deep thinker about evolution and consciousness, not just as an atheist.
As for the other three Horsemen, Hitch was first a Trotskyist then a supporter of Bush, I doubt one needs to add anything else.
Harris is confused on a number of issues, including free will (see Dennett's criticism of him in that respect) and the natural of morality (here is my review of The Moral Landscape: https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-02-02/#feature).
I have disagreed with Dawkins since The Selfish Gene. His view of evolution is extremely narrow and out of step with what the field has been doing for decades.
Hitch: not sure that that is a fair criticism. Some of his writing is just great. For sure, a raving mad as well. But a writer!
And though he was on board with baby Bush and his invasion, he got himself waterboarded because he wanted to be able to make a point. That takes guts.
Harris: The end of faith was a very nice book, IMO. After that he was disappointing. My impression of the moral landscape was a simplified version of utilitarianism (and simplified out of ignorance)(in the last para of your review, you say the same, more or less?).
That was a great review and your friend’s bestiality question, that’s wonderful.
Dawkins: “I have disagreed with Dawkins since The Selfish Gene.” As from the Selfish Gene or you disagree with things he wrote after the SG?
(btw, didn’t he publish the SG when you were 14 or so?)
I read the SG ca. 1990 and realised that biology is not just random facts, the way it had been taught in my secondary school (learn by heart the n steps of the human digestive system; make drawings of unicellulars etc.) but a real science …
(game theory with animals instead of war & markets!)
Have you got a link to a text explaining the contrast between Dawkins’s view and the consensus among contemporary biologists? Ideally one readable for a dilettante.
Maurits, this is a very good summary of the Gould-Dawkins controversy, by an excellent philosopher of science. It is, however, a bit biased in favor of Dawkins, in my opinion: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/889909.Dawkins_vs_Gould
I also published a short criticism of Dawkins's selfish gene concept in Skeptical Inquirer, but the site seems to be down at the moment. I'll try again later.
Here is a good (critical) review of Sterelny's book (linked above) by one of my former students, Leonard Finkelman: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0040-0
It took forever to arrive here but I've finally got my hands on Sterelny ("Dawkins vs Gould") and read it cover-to-cover in one session - very nice. It explained quite some of the big puzzles. Thanks for the recommendation.
However, I thought you recommended Sterelny for me to see illustrate your statement that Dawkins is narrow/out of step but Serelny repeatedly contrasts Gould with orthodoxy, not Dawkins (you also wrote that Serelny seems biased in favour of Dawkins, true).
So: it hasn't at all made your point about Dawkins (a. narrow; b) out of line); could you try to post the link to your own article making that point?
Maurits, glad you enjoyed the Sternly book! But yes, I think Kim is biased in favor of Dawkins, and I think he's simply factually mistaken when he argues that Gould represents the orthodoxy in evolutionary biology.
My own thoughts on Dawkins are here:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2007/11/beyond-selfish-genes/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2007/09/the-trouble-with-memetics/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2007/07/is-dawkins-deluded-when-scientists-talk-about-religion/
And just for fun:
Dawkins reviewing Gould's Full House: https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/51/3/1015/6757569
and Gould reviewing Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable: https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/51/3/1020/6757689
in the same issue of the prestigious journal Evolution.
Maurits, regarding Hitch: sure, it took guts, but in the service of the wrong cause, in my opinion. And of course I have no more sympathy for Trotskyism than for Bush...
Agreed on Harris.
Dawkins: yes, I was 12 when TSG came out! But later on I caught up with it. I don't disagree with Dawkins's books about explaining evolution for the general public. But TSG is often considered a major innovation, even cited in the primary literature, while in fact is a popularization of work done by Hamilton, Williams, and other major evolutionary biologists of the mid-20th century. And, as I said, it's very limited compared to the more expansive views on evolution put forth by Dawkins's arch-rival, Stephen Gould.
I'm about to pack for a short trip (going to the Wondrium studios in DC to begin recording a new course on Marcus's Meditations), but I'll look for some readings on the Dawkins-Gould controversy. More soon!
Good luck with the recording!
And no hurry with the link. The great reading period is way ahead of us, still.
Thanks, I’ll do my best with the recording. I’ll post something soonish here, or it will pass my mind and won’t happen…
Thanks for this, Massimo. Dan Dennett was a big influence on my thinking over the years. Like you, I found his "elbow room" approach to free will very compelling. I just read the NY Times obituary, and I think they got his view of free will completely wrong. Their summary of it sounds more like Sam Harris than Dan Dennett.
Rod, that was my thinking exactly! Which is rather ironic, given how Dan criticized Harris on that very point.
I'm a huge fan of Dennett, particularly Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I'm sorry to hear of his passing, but we knew he was mortal, didn't we? Thank you for letting us know of his passing.
shrink to proper size...back to the dust or ashes
Massimo, thanks for this! It’s indeed an intro to Dennett for me, since I didn’t know about him before. Sounds like there might be some great reads waiting for me. :-)
Daniel, glad to be helpful! Dennett is definitely worth reading!
Thanks for introducing Dennett, Massimo. He may have physically passed, but he left some of his mind behind to trace his journey of thought. He sounds like someone saying, “Don’t lose sight of the trees when you see the forest.” We must always keep in mind what we are thinking by how we are thinking. Consciousness and the why, and all the invisible “baggage” we carry with it are great questions being usually unseen. I don’t think much of the New York Times anymore. I’m just waiting for the attack on Stoicism
as an “-ism.” Maybe it’s a good cloaking device that it’s already attached. Reverse psychology. Maybe “Stoicientologism” will be coined and we’ll luminesce as quacks? 😊
😆
A lovely tribute to a great man. Thank you.
I did like "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Maybe I should reread it.
It seems I definitely should read "Intuition Pumps...". The 4 rules for arguing with kindness look like something I should aspire to as well.
I agree entirely. Thanks prof for sharing the memory
I hadn't heard of Dennett until October 2022. Since then, I've learnt a lot about and from him.
From what I can tell, it seems he left an indelible mark in many people's lives.
He certainly did. He struck me as kind and brilliant, a rare combination.
I didn't realize he had died. I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea when I was young, and it was what put me on the path of leaving behind the beliefs I grew up with, and eventually to this, much later.
Scott, nice beginning to your journey! Even though I disagreed with Dan about some aspects of that book, it's one of the great ones.