Dennett

For more than thirty-five years, I ve been studying evolution - originally the evolution of cancer (Shostak and Tammariello, 1969 Shostak, 1981), and more recently, the evolution of tissues (Shostak, 1993 Shostak and Kolluri, 1995). During this time, I have encountered reductionism, sometimes as a prod and frequently as an obstacle. I have learned, thereby, to appreciate the difficulties that reductionism presents for studying evolution. Thus, when Daniel Dennett, the philosopher of evolution and consciousness, asks in his perennially popular, Darwin s Dangerous Idea, Who s Afraid of Reductionism (Dennett, 1995, p. 80) I m compelled to answer I am and explain why. 

What is reductionism, anyway Dennett tells his reader that reductionism has no fixed meaning (Dennett, 1995, p. 80), but he defines bland reductionism as something No sane scientist disputes (Dennett, 1995, p. 81) while good reductionism. .. is simply the commitment to non-question-begging science without any cheating by embracing mysteries or miracles at the outset (Dennett, 1995, p. 82). 

The standard of testability (vulnerability to negation in the framework of a working hypothesis in the hypothetico-deductive mode or of simultaneous adjustment in the framework of Bayesian modeling) is probably the toughest standard demanded in science. Ideas as old as the monad are not necessarily tested and validated by repeated corroboration. Indeed, they may be untested and powered by inertia. Ideas which are testable are those for which there are alternatives otherwise ideas are either unnecessary or untestable. Since Dennett has already asserted that reductionism permits no alternative, monophyly as such would have to be untestable, but, before condemning it to the rank of scientific dogma, let me cite two cases in which monophyly was tested as the alternative to a different (polyphylic) hypothesis. 

Monophyly, thus, might be a scientific paradigm. Indeed, Dennett seems to have a paradigm in mind when he tells his reader ... 

The power of the theory of natural selection is not the power to prove exactly how (pre)history was but only the power to prove how it could have been, given what we know about how things are (Dennett 1995, p. 319). 

Dennett above all is not unaware of his agenda. Elsewhere, in his explanation of the tactic he calls intentional stance, he tells the reader ... 

Darwin s Dangerous Idea. The reductionism is Dennett s dangerous idea. 

Dennett, D. C. (1995), Darwin s Dangerous Idea Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Penguin Books, London. 

Dennett, D. C. (1998) Brainchildren Essays on Designing Minds, A Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Stan Shostak Well this is the word that Daniel Dennett uses. He defines bland reductionism as something no sane scientist disputes, and I dispute it. He defines good reductionism as simply the commitment to non-questioning science without any cheating, erasing, mysteries, or miracles at the outset. Anyone who takes a non-reductionist posture is thus invoking miracles ... 

Sohotra Sarkar I never thought I would ever be in a position to defend Dennett, particularly Darwin s Dangerous Idea book, but I do think you are being unfair to him. I mean, what he did mean by bland reductionism primarily is some kind of physicalism that nobody is going to deny, and that s all he meant by that. And then what you are presenting here as definitions are statements he makes, and those are not things that he calls definitions. 

Armando Aranda I m asking you a question because I m a molecular biologist, and I would like to know whether you have a theory about why fairly shallow tales such as those written by Dennett and Dawkins are so popular among molecular biologists - why they have such an important appeal. I m really glad to find out that they are not particularly popular among philosophers, but nevertheless they are bestsellers. 

Davis, G. B., Johnston, C. D., Patterson, B. M., Bucer, C. and Dennett, M., 1988, Estimation of Biodegradation Rates Using Respiration Tests during In-Situ Bioremediation of Weathered Diesel NAPL Ground Water Monitoring Remediation, Spring, pp. 122-132. 

Dennett, D. (1987). In R.E. Gregory (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to the Mind. (299-300). Oxford Oxford University Press. 

Evolution basically tells us what life is all about. It can be summed up as survive, eat, reproduce (Dennett 1995). The first and major goal is survival, i.e. not to get eaten by others. The second is finding food. Without food an individual cannot survive. The hunt for food induces a selection pressure on the prey population. If the other two goals are satisfied, i.e. there is no danger of getting eaten by others and the individual is not hungry, then the goal is to find a mate and to reproduce. 

Goldman, J. C., and M. R. Dennett. 2000. Growth of marine bacteria in batch and continuous culture under carbon and nitrogen limitation. Limnology and Oceanography 45 789-800. 

---