Daniel Dennett's Pathetic Fallacy

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Daniel Dennett's Pathetic Fallacy

Posted Jan 7th 2008 12:02AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism

Following my debate with Daniel Dennett, several atheists described Dennett's performance as "pathetic." If you want to see if they are right, you can watch the debate here. The term "pathetic," however, can be used in more than one sense. The Pathetic Fallacy (also called the Anthropomorphic Fallacy) is a term of art that refers to the error of attributing human qualities to inanimate objects. A brilliant recent book argues that this fallacy lies at the heart of the work of thinkers like Daniel Dennett.
Reading Dennett and others, you get the impression that science has demonstrated the material foundations of the human mind. Indeed we as humans are nothing more than atoms and molecules, and our self-conception is a kind of illusion generated by the neurons firing in our heads. Ultimately it is to evolution that we must turn, in Dennett's view, to understand who we are and how we function.

But in Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker challenge this materialist understanding as promoted by Dennett and others. Bennett is a leading neuroscientist at the University of Sydney. He also directs the Brain and Mind Research Institute. Reviewing the state of scientific knowledge about the brain, Bennett concludes that the notion that science currently has "major insights into the workings of the synaptic networks in any part of the brain" is both "misplaced" and the product of "hubris." According to Bennett, who knows what he is talking about, Dennett and other non-scientists are portraying science as having figured out things that science is a very long way from figuring out.

Peter Hacker, an Oxford philosopher who is considered the world's leading authority on Wittgenstein, takes Dennett and like-minded writers to task for attributing to an inanimate object, namely the brain, qualities that are properly assigned to human beings like you and me. Hacker cites Dennett as claiming that brains are conscious and gather information and make simplifying assumptions and use supporting information and arrive at conclusions. Hacker argues that this is a classic case of the pathetic fallacy.

In Hacker's view, brains aren't conscious; we are conscious. Brains don't gather or use information; human beings do. Brains don't draw conclusions; you and I do. Of course we use our brains to perceive and reason, just as we use our hands and feet to play tennis. But it is just as absurd to say that my hands and feet are playing tennis as it is to say that my racket is playing tennis. By the same token it is wrong to portray the brain as perceiving, thinking or even being aware of anything.

If it is humans that possess the qualities that Dennett and others attribute to the brain, it follows that the brain is an inanimate object, like the pancreas. We as human beings function with and through the operation of these devices, but it hardly follows that we are "nothing more" than the sum total of them. Materialism--the doctrine that reduces man to his material makeup--is revealed not as a necessary conclusion of modern science but rather as as atheist dogma masquerading as science.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [875]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 59)

Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

91. Brandon,
So aren't mine. It's 72 degrees here today with a 75% chance of sever thunderstorms later today. Go figure. Two weeks ago ice storm no electricity, now it's balmy 72 warmer here than Orlando, FL. Trust me though we will pay for it. Don't like the word Dogma either, don't always agree with DD, he is not all knowing. All I'm saying is that stick to the blog at hand and leave other people out of it. We all have brains and it all depends on how we choose to use them. Some people use them with seriousness and other use them with a comedy version but, scientist say we only use about 10% of our brain. Then it goes up to are you right sided or left sided? Even right down on how you perceive your thoughts and the dreams, who dreams and remembers and who doesn't. You can also make some very important decisions with your mind while you are sleeping hence,"Let me sleep on it and I'll get back to you". Rita

Rtia at 12:29PM on Jan 7th 2008

92. I can't wait until I move out so I can raise a dogma and take it around with me to pick up chicks.

Mokele-Mbembe at 12:31PM on Jan 7th 2008

93. http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm

This is an article about religion. The title clearly states "The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion"

Rtia and her theories. I guess she can go on believing in her so called 'theory' of religion if she wants.

a born atheist at 12:32PM on Jan 7th 2008

94. Linda -

Understood, but the brain as singular answer is still incomplete. That is why the problem of the mind persists.

For instance, we can look at the phenomenon of language. We know where the "language centers" of the mind reside. We understand language memorization and various meanings associated with words. What is less clear is how language is meaningful in the context of what we are doing right now. How does a string of language mean anything to us?

This might seem like a silly question, but it is one that science hasn't offered anything but speculation to. Noam Chomsky, one of our most famed linguists (and that is about all the credit I'm willing to give to him) notes this as a particularly fascinating and mysterious aspect of language. Noted contemporary philosopher Thomas Nagel includes this question as among the most basic and fundamental...and unanswered (see "What Does it All Mean").

Again, I think that what is often missed in the Dualist view is the true relationship between the "brain" and the "mind." They are intrinsically connected and dependent on one another.

But cognition alone does not answer why I feel pain when hope is crushed. It only answers why I am aware of things. Brain science can tell me how I retain memories. It cannot tell me why I ruminate on those memories. It can tell me how my body sends hunger messages to the brain, which in turns signals my body to put hand to mouth. It cannot tell me why I eat chocolate cake instead of fruit, when I know the fruit is better for me. It can tell me why I experience the "fight instinct" under threat. It cannot tell me why I struggle with forgiveness long, long after the threat has passed.

If there is no "mind" or "conscious self," why are we not purely logical beings? Someone says, "Because we have body chemistry (hormones) that the brain releases in response to certain situations." Well, animals have this too. But they do not think, feel, and will as human beings do.

My cat is cognizant. It also has a certain modicum of reason. If it wants inside it stands at the door and cries. But do I think my cat has a "conscious mind"? No. It operates in a purely Pavlovian way, as I suspect we would if Dualism were not true.

My question to you is, "If personhood is nothing but a matter of chemistry, why even bother engaging in the discussion?" After all, you are not witnessing a conversation about anything truly meaningful if you're right.

As for the observable effects of prayer and meditation on the brain, of course. Would you really expect the brain and the mind to be so disconnected that what happens in one does not affect the other?

JSL at 12:33PM on Jan 7th 2008

95. At last, a toy! Rita, posts like #90 are more like the thoughtful entries I like to see from you. Yeah, some of mine are thoughtless, but I have to keep myself entertained too.

Mokele-Mbembe at 12:36PM on Jan 7th 2008

96. I have seen cats show embarassment, dogs grieve, wildebeast altruism. Your argument falls short.

a born atheist at 12:38PM on Jan 7th 2008

97. JSL,
What is even the point of having a cat if you believe it is, essentially, a robot (behavior suggesting consciousness without actual consciousness)? Pets are family, not appliances.

Mokele-Mbembe at 12:41PM on Jan 7th 2008

98. Mokele, Does this mean you are not "dumber than a rat", or as grandapa used to say even a broken clock is right twice a day.

mac65 at 12:42PM on Jan 7th 2008

99. #69 - Gwen - First let me thank you and many of the other posters on both sides of the issues for expanding my awareness.

IMHO, as the scientific method creates and updates theories to best explain the observed information, science cannot PROVE anything and makes no claims to be able to. There is no current theory, based on science, that god exists. There cannot be PROOF that god does not exist. Anyone who asserts that god exists or that science has PROVEN that god does not exist, is depending on faith.

Having said that, as long as a person is able to function in society and does not try to force their beliefs on another - whether by threats, torture, or passing laws - why should anyone else try, in turn, to force that person to change their beliefs.

alan at 12:42PM on Jan 7th 2008

100. #91 - Mokele-Mbembe - having a dogma to help meet women is a good thing to have. Make sure your karma is clean and polished to maintain your image.

alan at 12:45PM on Jan 7th 2008

101. #93 - JSL - You raise some good questions. Would changing "science cannot" and "science does not" to "science cannot yet" and "science does not yet" change your view?

alan at 12:48PM on Jan 7th 2008

102. no matter what Dinesh says about atheists; it still doesn't prove that his god-man in the sky is real. I know that the argument's the thing, but sheesh! the anger and scorn gets tiresome, and the proofs get less and less compelling. I'm with the writer who said, if this is Christianity, I'll pass. Dinesh, are there no topics out there that will spur some intellegent, interesting debate? Is your god only as powerful as the atheists are weak?

dorothy at 12:51PM on Jan 7th 2008

103. ATHEIST

Reply to: The only "belief" that atheists share is the nonbelief in any deity. Other than that there is no shared dogma or ideology among people who call themselves atheists for there is no atheist "bible" or any one person or entity that speaks for or originates ideology for atheists.

I don't believe that science has disproven the "Christian" god anymore than science has disproven Zeus, Woden, Isis, Raiden, or any other "god". That is the old circular reasoning:
-------------------

I was just reading some reports about the Consumer Electronics Show. Sunday was press day, today was the first day the public was allowed to check out the exhibits.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/ces-2008-alienw.html

If you think your TV set is good, check out the videophile version of a TV set:

http://www.meridian-audio.com/p_mf2.htm

In most areas of knowledge, there are amateurs, and then there are scholars.

Dinesh is an amateur. He quotes Catholic "opinion" without giving the correct source.

In my opinion, the evidence IS conclusive.

The universe was NOT created by an "omnipresent" Deity. I've located several local "hot spots" where such a Deity is NOT present.

William Hays at 12:50PM on Jan 7th 2008

104. D'Souza,

People may see the actions of the brain throughout different parts of the body, but that does not mean that it is not caused by the brain. The brain is the person. Everything that makes a person who they are is stored and controlled in the brain. Without the brain, that person would be just a sack of flesh. By the way, the word for giving the qualities of a person to an inanimate object is called personification. The anthropomorphic fallacy that you refer to only means to put the qualities of a person on an animal, and I don't think that you a dumb enough to call a brain an animal so you obviously do not research what you are saying. I expect more from someone like yourself considering how intelligent you make yourself out to be. Or is that just another one of your fallacies?

James at 2:06PM on Jan 7th 2008

105. The entire nervous system, and the rest of the organs are all part of the human person. "The Mind" is in the brain. simple.

Linda at 12:51PM on Jan 7th 2008

Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.