Well, we definitely got different impressions from the book. I think it may come from our different perspectives. First, I don't recall any original scientific research by Dennett. I guess my bias, as a research scientist, is that science writings present original work. That doesn't exclude the possibility that he wrote a book about science.
I don't think most books about science for the lay public contain new science and many are written by non- scientists. I viewed this book in the same light. It was a strong defense of Darwinian Natural Selection, a notion that is one of the most powerful in modern culture let alone science. NS is of course attacked by creationists but it has been a source of confusion and controversey amoung those who believe in evolution. Dennett did a wonderful job of explaining NS; I particularly liked his notion of NS as an algorithmic iterative process;
He does go into long discussions about evolution, and I enjoyed them. But, I always saw the philosophical points that he was trying to make that underlie the discussions about science. The feel was also different. Mebbie its just because its evolution instead of physics, but then again the feel is more different from what I see as the feel of the discussions of my friends in biochemistry who have talked shop with me than that feel is from the feel of my own work.
His discussion felt very much like other science stuff I have read; just better in many ways. I wonder if our different takes reflect our different backrounds; you in the two ps (Philosophy and Physics) me in bio and medicine.
I think the philosophy is the new work in this book. He did a nice job of intertwining discussions of science with his philosophy, but I always felt that the his philosophy drove the book. It didn't drive it to the point where he actually twisted the science, which made me consider it a well written book, even though I disagree with his metaphysics and thought that he chickened out at the end.
Dan M.
