March 04, 2006
Dennett responds to the Wieseltier Review of his book
For those of you who have not been following this controversy, have a look at this first. Dennet himself has now protested Wieseltier's review in a letter to the New York Times Book Review:
Apparently The New York Times Book Review has discovered a new stunt. The most blatant examples — but there have been others recently — occur in Leon Wieseltier's campaign against "scientism" in his review of my book "Breaking the Spell" (Feb. 19). [Read an overview of bloggers' responses to the review.] Here's how it works: When you can't stand the implications of some scientific discipline X, but can't think of any solid objections, you brand them instances of the sin of Xism and then you don't have to take them seriously! What next? A review that warns about the pernicious "meteorologism" that keeps scolding us about global warming, or the "economism" that has the effrontery to inform us that the gap between rich and poor is growing? Wieseltier helps himself to several other instances of the trick in his review: he trots out the old chestnut reductionism, from which all serious meaning evaporated years ago, and sneers at my rationalism (a handy retort to any reasonable person when you can't think of anything better to say — "Stop being so, so, so . . . rationalistic!")
More here. [Scroll down, there is also a response from Wieseltier.] Also in the New York Times Book Review, Jennfer Schuessler reports on "Responses to the Review of 'Breaking the Spell'":
At Leiter Reports, University of Texas philosophy professor Brian Leiter challenges Wieseltier's "sneering" dismissal of the idea that science can shed some light on all aspects of human life. "'The view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical' is not a 'superstition' but a reasonable methodological posture to adopt based on the actual evidence, that is, based on the actual expanding success of the sciences . . . during the last hundred years," writes Leiter.
Silly Humans, Three Quarks Daily and The Secular Outpost offer more criticism in the same vein, with Silly Humans taking aim in particular at Wieseltier's accusations that Dennett is guilty of "scientism." "Scientism," writes Silly Humans' Michael Bains, is "the ultimate meme. It is insanely inane since it ignores the fact that Science is only a method for revealing the material workings of reality. Since it misdefines what science is, it says absolutely nothing about it." While generally sympathetic to Dennett, Chris Mooney at the Intersection takes issue with some of Dennett's own language, in particular his "unfortunate idea" of labeling religious nonbelievers "brights," which he floated in an op-ed in the Times in 2003.
More here. And, again, my own review of Dennet's book can be found here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 08:48 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4386238
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dennett responds to the Wieseltier Review of his book:
Comments
W is not only difficult to read, he misses the point of Dennett's LttE just as well as he missed the point of the book. I wonder if any of his other reviews can be any better. Maybe I'll read one, but this was awfully poor advertising for that occurrence.
Thanks for the linkage. I'd not read the whole letter until I found it here.
Posted by: Michael Bains | Mar 4, 2006 9:59:57 PM
I would be surprised that Dennett insults the reader's intelligence by trying to pass off scientism as science, but it is just possible he can't tell the difference. To use his illustration, I have no quarrel with meteorology or its practitioners, and consult the forecast just like my brave free-thinking infidel friends.
But suppose a philosopher urged an armchair account about how meteorology explained not only the weather, but whatever was really to be known and not mere illusion or froufrou or wishful thinking in politics, economic, morals, and religion. Although he might know little of these, he might confidently take on a famous Jew's observation that it rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike, or the prophet's hope that justice roll down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream, and then proceed to the injunction to love your neighbor as yourself, showing us to his satisfaction that these were all so much hot air, or all wet, or that a chill wind blew on them -- people who understood the proper significance of meteorology would appreciate that these silly sayings could no longer be taken seriously, and certainly offered no worthy guidance our lives. Maybe the meterological details have yet to be worked out that postdict these obsolete sentiments, but meantime the philosopher's handwaving suffices for the right-minded, who appreciate how the Universal Acid Rain of meteorology has withered the etz chayim, the "tree of life" that is Torah, and makes it impossible for it to grow up again.
Then would it be surprising if the philosopher could not understand that even people with no quarrel with metereology might fault his account and refuse his conclusions? After all, he did no meteorology, only made claims that the science could explain things outside its subject-matter, and then in place of testable explanations in the scientific style offered only belles-lettristic story-telling. Should his pronouncements on religion, morals etc. enjoy the same authority as some meterological luminary's who spoke for the consensus of the scientific community on a matter of meteorology?
I hope the partisans of scientism can stop hiding behind the skirts of the sciences, which can progress as well or better without philosophers trying to appropriate their prestige. Let the sciences undertake to explain as much as they can, without the philosophers of scientism presuming that what cannot be so explained is not worth knowing. After all, if the philsophers had scientific explanations of it to offer, they would not have to substitute naturalistic rhetoric and resort to unlearned "natural histories" -- and they would not need to misunderstand the charge of scientism.
Posted by: Dabodius | Mar 5, 2006 3:24:11 AM
A few (42) years ago I was required as a freshman at Michigan State to take a course on the scientific method. We have slaughtered a lot of trees to make books that don't understand this. It looks like a few more must die so the creators of isms that don't exist can misinterpret the writings of those that do.
Posted by: mr.ed | Mar 5, 2006 9:32:52 AM
I'm surprised no one has pointed out how much Dennett looks like Santa Clause, all the way down to the red shirt.
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 5, 2006 10:07:40 AM
The problem with Dennett's book is that it is too cutesy and really adds nothing to the debate on religion that hasn't been gone over by 100 better writers during the Enlightenment. I am a Dennett fan to some extent but his writing is full of sacarine jokes and purile word play. He usually is hiding a very strong argument in his bag, but one has to lick through a candy sludge to get there. Many love his style, which is why his books are best sellers. But this is not his best book. There is nothing here that is not done better in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.(luv that title!)
Wieseltier, on the other hand, makes no substantive point about Dennett's book, but trots out the noble sounding charge of "scientism" to battle the cute wordplay of Dennett. And true to form Dennett mocks this charge with one of his patented rejoinders that sunnily conjoins a mix of math and petulance.
The whole thing makes me a bit woozy. Is seems to me simply amazing that Dennett believes that relgious folk will read his book and convert to being to brights of his ilk. This itself is a strange form of irrationalism and perhaps explains more of the phenomenon of religion than he himself realizes.
What I mean is that Dennett has a certain religious fervour to his writing that is more than cold reason. Dennett is a man who wants you to convert and if you don't convert he wants you to be ashamed of yourself. Dennett is an evangelist for a religion that I wouldn't call scientism. Rather he is a salesmen for his Brand. And his desire for all to switch to his brand makes him a rival of all who want people to switch to theirs.
In the end it's just politics. Isn't there something more than that?
Thomas
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | Mar 5, 2006 11:26:25 AM
Sure, there's more than politics. There's philosophy. The history of the philosophy of this subject goes back to Xenophanes, at least, and includes Augustine, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, and any number of other worthy figures.
But few people these days bother to put in the time and effort to page through these dusty tomes, even though doing so would help their thinking capacities enormously.
We live in a culture that expects every idea to be concentrated down to something that can be absorbed in a minute or two. And assumes that everything worth knowing about has a history of about six weeks.
Posted by: JonJ | Mar 5, 2006 2:00:25 PM
I loathe that "brights" nonsense as much as anyone, but in DD's defense I don't think he came up with it. He just climbed aboard the unfortunate bandwagon (in the op-ed you mention), and has yet fully to disembark.
From the op-ed:
"The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help."
DD doesn't name the co-coiners of the term in that essay, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that neither is DD himself.
Posted by: Bill Hooker | Mar 6, 2006 12:28:10 PM
Post a comment