“The trouble with the canons of scientific evidence […] is that they virtually rule out the description of anything but oft-repeated, oft-observed, stereotypic behavior of a species, and this is just the sort of behavior that reveals no particular intelligence at all”

all this behavior can be more or less plausibly explained as the effects of some humdrum combination of "instinct" or tropism and conditioned response. It is the novel bits of behavior, the acts that couldn't plausibly be accounted for in terms of prior conditioning or training or habit, that speak eloquently of intelligence; but if their very novelty and unrepeatability make them anecdotal and hence inadmissible evidence, how can one proceed to develop the cognitive case for the intelligence of one's target species?
Source: The Intentional Stance (1987), p. 250

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "The trouble with the canons of scientific evidence […] is that they virtually rule out the description of anything but …" by Daniel Dennett?
Daniel Dennett photo
Daniel Dennett 86
American philosopher 1942

Related quotes

Jerry Coyne photo
Matthew Prior photo

“Till their own dreams at length decive 'em,
And oft repeating, they believe 'em.”

Matthew Prior (1664–1721) British diplomat, poet

Alma, Canto III, l. 13 (1718).

Steven Weinberg photo
Robert Silverberg photo

“Aristocrats might shrug, but commoners, dreading any collapse of the social order, wanted the rules of behavior to be observed.”

Robert Silverberg (1935) American speculative fiction writer and editor

Source: Short fiction, The Emperor and the Maula (2007), p. 443

Howard S. Becker photo
Samuel Bowles photo

Related topics