Editing Daniel Dennett (section)

===Evolutionary debate===
Much of Dennett's work from the 1990s onwards was concerned with fleshing out his previous ideas by addressing the same topics from an evolutionary standpoint, from what distinguishes human minds from animal minds (''Kinds of Minds''),<ref name=":0" /> to how free will is compatible with a naturalist view of the world (''[[Freedom Evolves]]'').<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Doomen |first=Jasper |date=2005 |title=Book Reviews |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400500111741 |journal=Australasian Journal of Philosophy |language=en |volume=83 |issue=2 |pages=295–298 |doi=10.1080/00048400500111741 |issn=0004-8402}}</ref>

Dennett saw evolution by natural selection as an [[algorithm]]ic process (though he spelt out that algorithms as simple as [[long division]] often incorporate a significant degree of [[randomness]]).<ref>''Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life'', Simon & Schuster, 1996, pp. 52–60, {{ISBN|0-684-82471-X}}.</ref> This idea is in conflict with the evolutionary philosophy of [[paleontologist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]], who preferred to stress the "pluralism" of evolution (i.e., its dependence on many crucial factors, of which natural selection is only one).{{cn|date=April 2024}}

Dennett's views on evolution are identified as being strongly [[Adaptationism|adaptationist]], in line with his theory of the [[intentional stance]], and the evolutionary views of [[biologist]] Richard Dawkins. In ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea'', Dennett showed himself even more willing than Dawkins to defend adaptationism in print, devoting an entire chapter to a criticism of the ideas of Gould. This stems from Gould's long-running public debate with [[E.&nbsp;O. Wilson]] and other evolutionary biologists over human [[sociobiology]] and its descendant [[evolutionary psychology]], which Gould and [[Richard Lewontin]] opposed, but which Dennett advocated, together with Dawkins and [[Steven Pinker]].<ref>Although Dennett expressed criticism of human sociobiology, calling it a form of "[[greedy reductionism]]", he was generally sympathetic towards the explanations proposed by [[evolutionary psychology]]. Gould also is not one-sided, and writes: "Sociobiologists have broadened their range of selective stories by invoking concepts of [[inclusive fitness]] and [[kin selection]] to solve (successfully I think) the vexatious problem of altruism—previously the greatest stumbling block to a Darwinian theory of social behavior... Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply." Gould, 1980. [http://www.ags.uci.edu/~mzyoung/p1.htm "Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection"]. {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20070715005236/http://www.ags.uci.edu/~mzyoung/p1.htm|date=July 15, 2007}}. In G.&nbsp;W. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., ''Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?'' Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 257–69.</ref> Gould argued that Dennett overstated his claims and misrepresented Gould's, to reinforce what Gould describes as Dennett's "Darwinian fundamentalism".<ref>[http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121226092302/http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html|date=December 26, 2012}} – Stephen Jay Gould's review of ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea'', June 26, 1997.</ref>

Dennett's theories have had a significant influence on the work of evolutionary psychologist [[Geoffrey Miller (psychologist)|Geoffrey Miller]].{{cn|date=April 2024}}