Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- From: lamoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Larry Moran)
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:08:06 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:28:46 +1000, John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> Dennett is not regarded as a biologist, although he's a wicked philosopher of
> mind and knows a fair bit about current neurophysiology, he's a philosopher of
> biology in this respect. He's widely regarded even when people think he's
> wrong, because he attacks the right issues.
>
> Incidentally, all the topics being discussed here are phislosophical ones.
Agreed. You need to keep reminding people that Dennet is a philosopher and
not a scientist. Some people mistakenly believe that he has made positive
contributions to science. (There's no doubt that he has made *negative*
contributions to science by helping to promote confusion between science and
philosophy.)
When it comes to science, Dennett is Dawkins' lapdog. I suspect that laps and
dogs are reveresed in the field of philosophy.
Larry Moran
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- References:
- Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—No Middle Ground
- From: Grendel
- Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- From: odin
- Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- From: John Wilkins
- Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—No Middle Ground
- Prev by Date: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Gains Momentum, Raises Eyebrows on Campuses
- Next by Date: Re: Renew America: Banning ID
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- Next by thread: Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|