Talk:Daniel Dennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Daniel Dennett, has edited Wikipedia as
Ddennett (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] A Computer of Sorts

From Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"; Little, Brown and Company 1991; ISBN: 0316180661; p. 433.

How could the brain be the seat of consciousness? This has usually been treated as a rhetorical question by philosophers, suggesting that an answer to it would be quite beyond human comprehension. A primary goal of this book has been to demolish that presumption. I have argued that you can imagine how all that complicated slew of activity in the brain amounts to conscious experience. My argument is straightforward: I have shown you how to do it. It turns out that the way to imagine this is to think of the brain as a computer of sorts. The concepts of computer science provide the crutches of imagination we need if we are to stumble across the terra incognita {unknown land} between our phenomenology as we know it by "introspection" {observation or examination of one's own mental and emotional state, mental processes, etc.} and our brains as science reveals them to us. By thinking of our brains as information-processing systems we can gradually dispel the fog and pick our way across the great divide, discovering how it might be that our brains produce all the phenomena. There are many treacherous pitfalls to avoid—such inviting dead ends as the Central Meaner, {subjective} "filling in," and "qualia {intrinsic qualities; a gun can be either 'good' or 'bad'}", for instance—and no doubt there are still some residual confusions and outright errors in the sketch I have provided, but at least we can now see what a path would be like.

Yesselman 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulled Direct Realism Section

I removed the following text:

Some have claimed that Dennett's philosophy possesses elements of Direct realism. One line of evidence is Dennett's well-known opposition to Cartesian materialism, which is a form of Indirect realism. In Consciousness Explained he considers a report of someone looking at the world and describes his idea of the relationship between conscious experience, mind and representation:
It seemed to him, according to the text, as if his mind - his visual field - were filled with intricate details of gold-green buds and wiggling branches, but although this is how it seemed this was an illusion. No such "plenum" ever came into his mind; the plenum remained out in the world where it it didn't have to be represented, but could just be. When we marvel, in those moments of heightened self-consciousness, at the glorious richness of our conscious experience, the richness we marvel at is actually the richness of the world outside, in all its ravishing detail. It does not "enter" our conscious minds, but is simply available (Dennett 1991).

The problem is that nobody's actually claimed this, except for a Wikipedia original researcher named Loxley. Loxley has shown himself to be hostile to Dennett and fairly clueless about Dennett's views, so his opinion is insufficient basis for the inclusion of this text, even if it weren't entirely OR.

Now, if we can find some citations of anyone the least bit relevant and important who thinks Dennett supports Direct Realism, then by all means restore the removed text. Alienus 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email from Dennett

Not long ago, I emailed Dennett to ask him for guidance on this article. In particular I asked:

While it's easy to realize you find fault with Dualism and Cartesian Materialism, we have been struggling a bit to find a concise explaination of what view you ultimately subscribe to, regarding consciousness. One contributor suggested you might be an adherent of direct realism-- is that true?

His reply, in full, was:

Ah me, I find I just cannot, will not, rise to this bait! I have so many quarrels with the ways philosophers try to insist upon framing these issues that I cannot volunteer any categorization of my own view in the terms that are current. I encourage you to quote me to just this effect--to cast doubt (at least a little bit!) on the terms that are now deemed illuminating. I think they are almost all misleading.

So, I guess we can make of this what we will. I feel like Dennett can sometime be an "ink blot" which people can project their own views onto. grumble.. Dennett's such a character. He's so frustrating. LOL. --Alecmconroy 07:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 :)... have you looked at Don Ross, Andrew Brook, and David Thompson, (eds) "Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment" MIT Press (2000)? Don Ross describes the book as "A volume of essays that attempts to assess the extent to which Daniel Dennett's work on intentionality, consciousness and evolution "hangs together" as a coherent whole." Maybe it will help... Mikker ... 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
<partisan>Yeah, his being right frustrates a lot of people who are wrong.</partisan> Alienus 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, him, as he says. Looks rather more to me like he's not prepared to take any stance here because he hasn't found one which works for him. Given that our appreciation of 'mental' reality is our only indubitable touchstone with the world, and thus ultimately, our only solid criteria for assessing the viability of a persons thought as a whole, this is quite a glaring ommission on his part. Save to say that this is a topic he prefers to remain discretely quiet about, preferring to deal with individual issues problem at a time rather than hazard a guess towards the big picture of what's actually going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.38 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dennett was very clear here that he can best be categorized by quoting him to the effect that the categories used by philosophers aren't adequate. This not only does better than any categorization that is bound to be inaccurate, but provides information by this philosopher as to his view of philosophical categories. The only way I can see that as "frustrating" is if you think you have more insight into these matters than Dennett. The notion that he's not prepared to take a stance, or has glaringly omitted something about "the big picture" is absurd; Dennett's work as a whole provides a big picture. What you want is not a picture, but a label for the picture. If you're that desperate for a label, just call it Dennettism. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content and consciousness

First, I want to thank Anthony Mohen for contributing substantively to the article. I just did a cleanup on these additions, and mostly corrected language, but I ran into a section that I'm not sure what to do with. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, so I'm not sure how to fix it so that it says what it's trying to say. For now, I've moved the section here so we can figure this out:

His approach to this project has also remained divided as it was in his thesis into a theory of content and a theory of consciousness. Content and Consciousness is the name of his dissertation, Brainstorms is similarly divided, and his later books The Intentional Stance and Consciousness Explained respectively form the two fullest developments of each half of his project.

Could you explain? Alienus 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm glad to see there's actually recent activity on this article, which has been long overdue for an overhaul. I have some general questions about how this article is structured, what the subject headings should be, etc., but for now it just seemed to me a glaring omission to mention the breakdown of Content/Consciousness which Dennett himself acknowledges as a defining element of his project (whatever you want to call his stance). We should also probably have a subsection on the Intentional Stance itself, and something on the Multiple Drafts Model of consciousness. I also added the evolutionary section, which is probably a little too vague as stated. We may want to cite Orr's review of DDI (and Dennett's response) to flesh out the critique from biologists of his sociobiological prospect. Oh, and memes are a glaring omission, but I don't have the time to draft that section right now. If anyone could look at the syntax for the footnote I included to the Gould article, I would appreciate it - this is the first time I've used that syntax. Thanks.
Regarding the part quoted by Alienus, this is a breakdown Dennett himself describes in several places in print. Content and Consciousness and Brainstorms are both broken into two sections, one accounting for how we produce content, the second developing a related theory of consciousness. This breakdown is then extended into the Intentional Stance, which collects essays about the issue of content, and Consciousness Explained, which is a synthesis of his earlier views into a unified theory of consciousness. I suppose it wasn't entirely clear from those two sentences that he continued to see these as distinct but related projects which he has treated in two parts throughout his career.
Anthony Mohen 12:44, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Okay, I rewrote that section, in a way which I hope is better expressed. If you want to just quote Dennett directly on this point, he lays this same idea out on p. 355 of Brainchildren, but it doesn't strike me as necessary for such a simple statement (although I certainly seem to have botched my attempts to describe it so far). If Alienus or anyone else wants to double check the new text for language/etc., that'd be great.

Anthony Mohen 13:00, 13 February 2006 (EST)

At the moment, the page isn't coming up. It's as if it were somehow deleted. Since I know Wikipedia's been having some problems, I'm hoping this is just a temporary failure.
Your ideas for new sections make sense. Many of the topics already have articles, which would then be converted into forks from this one. The articles also have plenty of material that can be mined for use in summary paragraphs on the main article. Alienus 18:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote sourcing

When formatting the following quote from the article:

[Others] note that my "avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters" often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors

I noticed it is sourced to "Dennett, 1993", but there is no reference to a 1993 work by Dennett listed in the article. Does anyone know where this quote came from? -Seth Mahoney 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Google is omniscient. Here Alienus 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. -Seth Mahoney 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok, who dug up that awesome picture of him from the 80s? ~Anthony Mohen 18:56, 22 April 2006 (EST)

Check the history: it was Hayford Peirce. Alienus 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aldaily.com editor?

I removed the following text from the article:

  • Arts & Letters Daily - Art and culture blog run by The Council of Higher Education and edited by Dennett

I visited the site, and while it was interesting and did occasionally mention Dennett, I saw no hint that he edits it. Al 06:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

True. All the content actualy involving Dennett and not simply reviewing or mentioning his work are interviews on other site. --maru (talk) contribs 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The editor is named on the homepage as Denis Dutton. QED. --Dannyno 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance section

This section has got to go.

Anyone have a problem with that? This section is useless. I've met Dennett, and in a room full of professors, his appearance is typical not notable. --Eric Silva 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

People have thought it worth commenting on. --Gwern (contribs) 01:20 1 December 2006 (GMT)
I agree 100% that it should go. So what if *some* people have thought it worth commenting on? How many? Two, three, four, out of the thousands of people who have seen/met him? When the NYT writes a review of his books, does it mention he looks like Santa Claus? Not in any of the long, LONG NYT reviews that I've seen. There are two pictures of him in the article -- isn't that enough without this extremely foolish paragraph? Hayford Peirce 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And you don't think that might be because they are book reviews and not biographies? --Gwern (contribs) 01:24 1 December 2006 (GMT)
"People have thought" that? This is not the criteria Wikipedia uses for including information.
Do we really need an appearance section when there are two photos in the page? For goodness sakes, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton don't even have "Appearance" sections! --Eric Silva 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Article

Sincerely i think the whole article should be given a major transformation. It seems like a small introduction, like those you´d find in a book´s back or as a brochure for a lecture. Petrus hispanus 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart attack

He had a heart attack a couple months back. See this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranksValli (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Atheist advocate

Dennett's written work on atheism is a minuscule fraction of his philosophical work. We might as well have the lead sentence on Bertrand Russell's article state that he is an "agnostic advocate" because he wrote Why I am not a Christian. Aside from this, there is no source stating that he is an atheist advocate. Making the inference from a work or body of works is original research. There needs to be something better than this, and until there is, this article is in violation of WP:BLP. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comment per WP:BLP. Unless a credible source can be given stating that he is a "atheist advocate," that term shouldn't be used.--Alabamaboy 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, he wrote an entire book attacking religion (Breaking the Spell); his entire body of work is basically attempting to explain consciousness, how it could have arisen, and how it could work in the absence of divine intervention or other non-material explanations! I don't know how you can read the last ten years or whatever or press coverage or his output and not come to the conclusion that he is atheist and an atheist advocate. And I find it more than a little odd that describing him as an atheist is covered by BLP? Is it an insult or slur somehow? --Gwern (contribs) 01:09 30 April 2007 (GMT)
Arguing against religion is not identical to "atheist advocacy," and most living philosophers of mind (every single one I can think of, actually) argues for some naturalistic theory of consciousness. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, "dude", if you cannot comprehend what Simoes wrote then you have no business being anywhere near Wikipedia. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to say that he is a supporter of the brights movement. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

User:Otto-pilot is correct. Dennett's birthplace is Boston, not Beirut. It took some digging, but I did find the correction that he refers to. The link is here http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/Guardiancorrections.htm and it states "In our profile of Daniel Dennett (pages 20 to 23, Review, April 17), we said he was born in Beirut. In fact, he was born in Boston. His father died in 1947, not 1948. He married in 1962, not 1963. The seminar at which Stephen Jay Gould was rigorously questioned by Dennett's students was Dennett's seminar at Tufts, not Gould's at Harvard. Dennett wrote Darwin's Dangerous Idea before, not after, Gould called him a "Darwinian fundamentalist". Only one chapter in the book, not four, is devoted to taking issue with Gould. The list of Dennett's books omitted Elbow Room, 1984, and The Intentional Stance, 1987. The marble sculpture, recollected by a friend, that Dennett was working on in 1963 was not a mother and child. It was a man reading a book." Edhubbard 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dennett's atheism and proponency of the brights movement

Breaking the Spell is mostly an endeavor to present a naturalistic history of religion. Dennett doesn't argue for atheism as such in any part of the book, and to the extent that he writes on the overall negative impact of religion, he doesn't surgically target the theistic aspect of it. Is he an atheist? Of course, but it has little to do with his professional work. The closest Big Idea that comes to it is his metaphysical naturalism—which does entail atheism—but isn't the focus of his naturalistic writings.

Although Breaking the Spell is not a full frontal assault on religion in the same way that Dawkins' The God Delusion is, Dennett clearly means for his book to be taken as a starting point for an eventual elimination of religions as a set of untested, and unchallengable assumptions of truth in the absence of fact. You might almost think of this as a reverse wedge strategy. BTW, I do note that your opposition to the inclusion of this material has come a long way from your early comments that such statements were "potentially libellous" [1]. Edhubbard 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And as for this brights movement bit, he wrote a single newspaper column on it. He's a proponent, but it makes little sense to include that in the lead. We might as well call him a guest columnist and avid tennis fan, to boot. As a comparison, observe that Richard Dawkins is a brights movement proponent, but the editors of that article didn't find it worth mentioning until the end of the third paragraph. It's simply not a main component of either scholar's identity. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the "third paragraph" bit is something of a red herring, since Dennett's lead is only one paragraph, while Dawkins' is three. If it would make you feel better, perhaps we could make the lead into two paragraphs so that discussion of Dennett's atheism the second paragraph. In any case, your citation of Dawkins actually makes the case for including it in the lead of Dennett's biography that much stronger. Dennett is first and foremost a philosopher, but is also an active atheist in just the same way that Dawkins is first and foremost an ethologist and evolutionary theorist, but also a noted atheist. Edhubbard 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Select quote

It is on wikiquote. Now what is so distinguished about it, that it should appear, without any context, on an encyc. article? Do you know of a biography in wikipedia with a similar section? trespassers william 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, given that it's in wikiquote, the quote probably doesn't need to be duplicated here. On the other hand, I do think that this quote gives something of the kernel of Dennett's thinking about the mind-body problem, and his ideas about syntactic engines that eventually mimic semantic performance. The thing that would be best is if we can turn this into a proper paragraph of text, explaining some of Dennett's ideas, and use the quote as our source, instead of eliminating something that currently does add content, but probably not in the best format. Edhubbard 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo on article

Until recently my photo from flickr [2] was used on the article. I was glad for it, and didn't see a comment on the history page why it has been removed. Shouldn't it be back? David.orban 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It is still there, but for some reason it wasn't showing when I looked. David.orban 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prospect article and quote

There is a very interesting nuance to Dennett's position in his debate in Prospect. A couple of editors remove this - perhaps it doesn't fit with their tidy worldviews? - but since it is a direct quote saying "summary not accurate" when it is not meant to be a summary of his entire outlook but an interesting refinement of it is really not good enough! NBeale 07:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a nuance fit for an encyclopedia? Sounds subjective to me (I can't access the Prospect piece to check). Summarising a nuance into a sentence sounds like a recipe for POV-pushing to me (but that's just my tidy worldview). More importantly, this seems like a completely minor point compared to the material in the rest of the section - is it notable? --Plumbago 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a very interesting front opening up in the whole debate about religion and society. The simplistic "you can't prove it's true, therefore it must be false, therefore harmful, therefore ecrasez l'infame" is being replaced, even in sceptical and atheistic circles with a more reflective "well we can't prove it's true, or false for that matter - I don't think it's at all plausible and I will certainly resist attempts to impose it on me or others, but the history of attempts to eradicate religion has been deplorable: let's try to understand the whole thing a bit better and consider what role religion actually plays and what, if anything, could do it better."
The rest of Dennett's first letter (that is subscribers only) reads: "The phoenix-like rebound of religion in the former Soviet Union suggests to many that just as prohibition and the war on drugs have proved to be disastrous, if well-meant, attempts to deal with the excesses of these popular indulgences, so any ill-informed effort to rein in the fanatical strains of religion will probably backfire badly if we don't study the surrounding phenomena carefully and objectively.
From a biological perspective, religion is a remarkably costly human activity that has evolved over the millennia. What "pays for" this profligate expense? Why does it exist and how does it foster such powerful allegiances? To many people, even asking such a question will seem a sacrilege. But to undertake a serious scientific study of religious practices and attitudes, we must set aside the traditional exemption from scrutiny that religions have enjoyed.
Some people are sure that the world would be a better place without religion. I am not persuaded, because I cannot yet characterise anything that could replace it in the hearts of most human beings. (Perhaps we should try to eliminate music while we're at it. It inflames the passions and seduces many young people into wasted lives.) What people care about deeply deserves to be taken seriously. Exempting religion from scrutiny is actually a patronising way of declaring it to be all just fashion and ceremony.
Either we take religion as seriously as we take global warming and el Niño, and study it intensively, or we treat it as mere superstition and backwardness. As with the other marvels of nature, I find that paying scrupulous attention to its elegant designs increases my appreciation of it, but others may think that too much knowledge of the backstage machinery threatens to diminish their awe, to break a spell that should not be broken. This is not just a difference in taste, or a purely academic disagreement. Our futures may well depend on how we decide to proceed." NBeale 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. It may indeed be interesting, but my point is that it's not an obviously notable point. Furthermore, as it currently appears in the article, it's devoid of context and a bit of a non sequitur. Given that the entirety of Dennett's book Breaking the Spell is summarised in a single sentence here (and one that doesn't link to the "offending" sentence), this latter, minor point appears faintly ridiculous in its rather narrow scope. On that note, might it not be better at the Breaking the Spell article where it has more context? The only sensible alternative it seems to me, is to expand on Dennett's views on religion here before concluding on the "offending" point (that he thinks that, for all its flaws, religion fills a gap in most peoples' lives). --Plumbago 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The function of the article is to provide an insight into, and a useful summary of, Daniel Dennett and his views. It is not there to provide a summary of the views of NBeale, however many quotations from Dennett are used to back up those opinions! GNUSMAS : TALK 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how hard atheists find even small doses of truth that does not mesh with their preconceived ideas. Think about what Dennett is saying - don't try to shut out the bits you don't like. Probably in your hearts you know that your positions are very poorly supported by facts, but don't try to hide the facts from others, or yourselves. And try not to waste serious people's time by pointless reverts. This are not my views, but Dan's NBeale 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether they are facts, or whether I or any other presumed athiest likes them, but a matter of whether they are relevant to the article. What I object to is precisely your attempt to insert "small doses of truth" into articles on all sorts of subjects, and to do so not because such an insertion improves the article and aids the reader's understanding of its subject, but because it enables you to push your particular point of view. GNUSMAS : TALK 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew I was right to remove the text, but I still thought NBeale was making good-faith edits. Now it's obvious that he has a track record of inserting pro-religious bias in a bunch of articles. Next time he pulls this, I'll be even quicker to revert. ThAtSo 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NBeale, try to avoid your POV when you edit.--Svetovid 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my POV that Dennett has this view. It seems to be your POV that you want to hide it. Why do you find truth so difficult? NBeale 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Everybody can see your long post here starting "I think it's a very interesting front opening...", which is just your opinion and had nothing to do with the article.--Svetovid 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Dennett said he is "not persuaded... [etc.]". But there is considerable doubt about the value of including this comment in the article. It is quite inappropriate to include it merely because it is "interesting" to NBeale (presumably because it provides him with a way of inserting what he considers a "small dose of truth"), and I can see no other argument being proposed to support its inclusion. GNUSMAS : TALK 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that NBeale is seemingly desperate to make it seem as if Dennett is a friend to religion, just like his hero, Polkinghorne, but that's just not the case, and no amount of out-of-context quoting is going to change reality. It's also not going to to change this article, since I'm going to revert any edits that violate the consensus on neutrality. ThAtSo 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the issues, so your non-consensus insertion is going to be removed again. ThAtSo 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an out of context quote and should not be used to push a personal agenda and unbalance the article. Having worked with NBeale before I know his view is that all atheists don't mean it really and will repent on their deathbeds if not before, hence his interest in the quote. Sophia 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's very funny, since I was just reading about how Dennett recently had an opportunity for a deathbed conversion but passed it up. Guess NBeale got another one wrong. ThAtSo 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Returning once more to the fray ... NBeale — it would be more productive to address comments on the notability and context of the material you wish to add, rather than simply lash out at fellow editors who don't concur with your POV. You'd be well advised to save some of your remarks above for your blog — it's becoming difficult for people here to continue to assume good faith on your part. --Plumbago 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

A template for Dennett like Richard Dawkins one would be good to tie the Dennett articles together (his original concepts like greedy reductionism, his books etc. A pity we don't have articles on all his books, but we could just leave the ones without article out or make red links. Another possibility is a category (they are not mutually exclusive, of course). How about Category:Daniel Dennett? I notice that Richard Dawkins has Category:Books by Richard Dawkins instead with no Category:Richard Dawkins - is this preferable? Richard001 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit:I've been bold and created the category (as you can probably see above). Should the 'books by' category be added as a subcat, or is the eponymous one enough? Richard001 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like the main category will be deleted, but a new one called Category:Books by Daniel Dennett has been created. I think a template containing all the relevant links would still work well; i.e. greedy reductionism, heterophenomenology, intentional stance, intuition pump and the Multiple Drafts Model. I might take a swing at it myself some time if nobody objects, though I'm not a templater by trade. Richard001 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just created one based on the Dawkin's code. See template:Dennett. Richard001 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free floating rationales

When did Dennett coin the term 'free floating rationale'? Was it Darwin's Dangerous Idea, or an earlier work? Richard001 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage:Ddennett

A user named Ddennett has recently edited this article in a way that made me suspicious the subject and the user might be the same person. I have sent an e-mail to Dr. Dennett's Tufts E-mail adress seeking confirmation on whether or not they indeed are.D-rew (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done.
Just to avoid confusion of others, the changes were strictly factual, no POV changes.--Svetovid (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have pointed that out. I repeat his edits were in no fashion questionable.D-rew (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me of the section I added to Template talk:Notable Wikipedian#When should this be used?. Any comments there would be welcome. Richard001 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag here despite your suggestion, simply because that is my understanding of the current policy. I have no opinion either way on the subject though so I didn't comment on the Template's page.D-rew (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I received a confirmation from Dr. Dennett, so I'm going to add the appropriate tags and such. I think I'm supposed to send the e-mail confirmation to an admin to disprove sockpuppet or something like that...anybody know the details of that?D-rew (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we feel the need to shine a spotlight on someone like this? Should we write up an article for the signpost 'Dan Dennett makes edit to Wikipedia!'? It seems highly nonconstructive to me and will probably scare people away from making constructive edits like fixing factual inaccuracies. A case almost identical to this happened with Carl Zimmer, though there is no template on his article.
I don't think we even have a policy on this. The template doesn't give any instructions on when to use it, which is why I brought the issue up. I have proposed conditions when it should be used on the talk page of the template. Richard001 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I read your comment on the page and don't agree or disagree with it, but as I said I think the current policy (policy may have been a misstatement, but current practice though I think is in favor) is to add automatically.D-rew (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't re-add the templpate to the page, both because I don't think its all that important right now and I hate edit wars, but I would like to ask for more consensus from the community on this.D-rew (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influenced By... Russell?

I am removing Russell as an influence and adding Darwin. The latter decision is, I hope, uncontenious. The former is tempered by the fact that, though Dennett can of course be said to have been influenced by Russell as have all philosophers within the analytic tradition and has almost certainly read his work, I don't see any particular reason to think that Russell has been influential upon Dan to such a degree as to include him in a list with Ryle, Quine, Wittgenstein and Darwin. A flick through the indexes of Ross, Brock & Thompson and Elton confirm that it is possible to write at length on Dennett without so much as a mention of Russell, Russell's mentions in Consciousness Explained are all anecdotal while he doesn't appear in Content and Consciousness at all. Brentano would be more worthy of a place on the list and a mention of Hofstadter whether in influenced or influenced by is sorely lacking. (This isn't some kind of anti-Russell trip; I just don't see any reason to consider him more of an influence than, say, Frege or Locke. If someone could point me to evidence to the contrary I'd be embarassed but grateful). DuncanCrowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, I meant to say 'Brentano'.