RE: Dennett throws down the gloves and pummels Sam Harris right in the gut
February 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm by Mudhammam.)
Here's a response to Dennett's response, re-tweeted by Sam Harris: http://www.danielmiessler.com/blog/denne...g-freewill
Consider this from the Meissler piece:
"'Harris: However, the ‘free will’ that compatibilists defend is not the free will that most people feel they have. (p16)
"Dennett: First of all, he doesn’t know this. This is a guess, and suitably expressed questionnaires might well prove him wrong.
Seriously? Do you really think that, in a country where only half of the population believes in evolution, any significant percentage of people are going to have an advanced belief in free will?"
Imagine if Miessler had wrote a critique of Dawkins; he might write: "However, the ‘evolution’ that scientists defend is not the evolution that most people feel they know." Therefore, presumably, we should do away with the term "evolution" instead of trying to write a nuanced rapport that explains how evolution should be understood. It is totally superfluous reasoning. Otherwise, however, this counter-rebuttal makes some valid points as well...
Consider this from the Meissler piece:
"'Harris: However, the ‘free will’ that compatibilists defend is not the free will that most people feel they have. (p16)
"Dennett: First of all, he doesn’t know this. This is a guess, and suitably expressed questionnaires might well prove him wrong.
Seriously? Do you really think that, in a country where only half of the population believes in evolution, any significant percentage of people are going to have an advanced belief in free will?"
Imagine if Miessler had wrote a critique of Dawkins; he might write: "However, the ‘evolution’ that scientists defend is not the evolution that most people feel they know." Therefore, presumably, we should do away with the term "evolution" instead of trying to write a nuanced rapport that explains how evolution should be understood. It is totally superfluous reasoning. Otherwise, however, this counter-rebuttal makes some valid points as well...
