Abstract Science

Explain Dennett's comparison of philosophical thought processes/methods and those of robotics researchers.

     Daniel C. Dennett, a practiced philosopher likens the research process of present-day roboticists to that of philosophers. Dennett compares the thought processes of roboticists to those of philosophers through the reliable method of the thought experiment. Thought experiments are paramount in philosophy because they are essentially the only means of experimentation in the philosophical world (there are no distinct/concrete models to be created when deciphering the abstract). Dennett explains that robotics research is eerily similar due to the abstract nature of the researchers’ questions (how can we create consciousness? etc). However, there remains a distinction between robotics research and philosophical thought experiments – robotics researchers, after careful thought experiments (and when not considering experiments too complex*) are able to create concrete models of their thought experiments to determine whether or not their hypotheses were actually correct. Also, Dennett explains that in this way, robotics researchers may encounter surprises and unexpected variables (when constructing and testing their models) whereas philosophers can expect their thought experiments to work the way they expect (including all variables limited to their own specific thoughts).


*as in not in the realm of what is possible through current technology.
     Where I disagree with Dennett’s comparison of philosophy and robotics lies with Dennett’s critique of modern science; he states that scientists are not required to discover (or rediscover) the history that their predecessors realized (whether proved correct or incorrect). Yet Dennett also explains that philosopher’s require an intimate knowledge of the history of their specific subject. I do not agree that it is any different regarding scientists. Scientists, when contemplating a research question, must go forth and research/learn all the information available on their particular research subject, not unlike philosophical processes.