|
I had begun this work with some anticipation. Although it isn't Daniel C. Dennett's only book, it is the first one I chose to read. Dennett has a healthy reputation as a philosopher of mind, and his name pops up often enough for me to think him worthy of notice. Unfortunately, early in the text, on page 24, Dennett commits a classic blunder of arrogance. Instead of simply presenting his ideas for consideration, he feels it necessary to first ridicule ideas he deems ignorant and backward. Here, reproduced for your verification of my statement, is the passage in question: "To some people, all this seems shocking and unlikely, I realize, but I suspect that they haven't noticed how desperate the alternatives are. Dualism (the view that minds are composed of some nonphysical and utterly mysterious stuff) and vitalism (the view that living things contain some special physical but equally mysterious stuff --- élan vital) have been relegated to the trash heap of history, along with alchemy and astrology. Unless you are prepared to declare that the world is flat and the sun is a fiery chariot pulled by winged horses --- unless, in other words, your defiance of modern science is quite complete --- you won't find any place to stand and fight for these obsolete ideas." Really now, is that so? So because modern science hasn't figured out how to qualify (or quantify) certain phenomena, then the inability to do this is equal to nonexistence? So Mr. Dennett, you're willing to state categorically to the world that because, even after over a hundred years, we still haven't conclusively figured out how light can behave like a particle and a wave, that we must be mistaken in our observations? Oh, you wouldn't say something so shortsighted? How convenient for you to be able to pick and choose where to aim your darts. Equating physically disproven ideas (such as a flat earth and a fiery chariot sun) with something that currently sidesteps our ability to examine satisfactorily is nothing more than cheap theatrics. Mockery belongs in works of fiction, instead of nonfiction materials purporting to edify the masses about the workings of the universe. A different view or explanation of a currently-not-fully-understood phenomenon is hardly synonymous with a complete defiance of modern science. Thomas Huxley, champion of evolution, said, "Anyone who is practically acquainted with scientific work is aware that those who refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact." Perhaps for some intellectuals, such as Dennett, Dawkins, et al, imagination is equal to delusion? Albert Einstein surely would have smirked at that assertion, had he encountered it in the public arena. I may or may not return to Dennett's work in the future; his ideas concerning the structure of consciousness could possibly include something of merit. However, since there are many, many more open-minded intellectuals who have published provocative and groundbreaking volumes, I think my energies are better directed toward thinkers who are not afraid to ask important questions. I don't possess enough free time to devote to "experts" who presume the only legitimate answers dwell within their elitist circles. |