I noted before about Dawkins that the irrationality in his argument smacks of his trying to shore up certain types of thinking that would protect the legacy he would like to have.
I have read both Dawkins and Dennett before, and dabbled in their ideas, but I am closer to Dennett, because Dennett is a Cognitive Psychologist first. I refer to Cognitive Psychology as CBM, or Cognitive Behavior Modification. CBM fits well into the larger Behavior Modification of BF Skinner, wherein reinforcement increases behavior (as punishment would decrease it). At the cognitive level, reinforcement increases thoughts and types of thoughts. CBM and BM both fit well into Darwinian survival of the fit species, as it explains a process of adaptation that we can appreciate.
If someone pays me to do a type of job, and money is a reinforcer for me, then I will do that more often. At the cognitive level, if a belief system tends to pay off for me, I will tend to adopt it. It works for me.
Dennett goes brilliantly into CBM as a pioneer. This is what he will go down in history for. He may wish to go down in history for other things he has dabbled in, but these will be only curious aspects of his make-up as people view his bio. For instance, I think of EE Cummings as a poet, but he was a painter too. So, just as Cummings as a poet, Dennett is a Cognitive Psychologist, not a theologian, not a evolutionary theorist, not.
So, what's he doing in this argument anyway? It seems the same thing Dawkins is. They each seem to have a vested interest in a belief system prevailing that supports their life's works. What if someone proved that evolution was impossible? Dawkins' and Dennett's respective arguments would be thrown out. What if everyone in the world taught their children only that no God could possibly exist and that there was only evolution just as Dawkins and Dennett have presumed? Then, they will be thought of as great thinkers for generations to come. They don't want to be latter day Freuds, whereby we become more sophisticated than their arguments that become passe when thought through.
This is my suspicion anyway. Why else the sudden irrationalities from them?
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteI like Orr's response.
I noted before about Dawkins that the irrationality in his argument smacks of his trying to shore up certain types of thinking that would protect the legacy he would like to have.
I have read both Dawkins and Dennett before, and dabbled in their ideas, but I am closer to Dennett, because Dennett is a Cognitive Psychologist first. I refer to Cognitive Psychology as CBM, or Cognitive Behavior Modification. CBM fits well into the larger Behavior Modification of BF Skinner, wherein reinforcement increases behavior (as punishment would decrease it). At the cognitive level, reinforcement increases thoughts and types of thoughts. CBM and BM both fit well into Darwinian survival of the fit species, as it explains a process of adaptation that we can appreciate.
If someone pays me to do a type of job, and money is a reinforcer for me, then I will do that more often. At the cognitive level, if a belief system tends to pay off for me, I will tend to adopt it. It works for me.
Dennett goes brilliantly into CBM as a pioneer. This is what he will go down in history for. He may wish to go down in history for other things he has dabbled in, but these will be only curious aspects of his make-up as people view his bio. For instance, I think of EE Cummings as a poet, but he was a painter too. So, just as Cummings as a poet, Dennett is a Cognitive Psychologist, not a theologian, not a evolutionary theorist, not.
So, what's he doing in this argument anyway? It seems the same thing Dawkins is. They each seem to have a vested interest in a belief system prevailing that supports their life's works. What if someone proved that evolution was impossible? Dawkins' and Dennett's respective arguments would be thrown out. What if everyone in the world taught their children only that no God could possibly exist and that there was only evolution just as Dawkins and Dennett have presumed? Then, they will be thought of as great thinkers for generations to come. They don't want to be latter day Freuds, whereby we become more sophisticated than their arguments that become passe when thought through.
This is my suspicion anyway. Why else the sudden irrationalities from them?
Yours,
Rus