Funding and Philosophical Results (Updated w/ Replies by Dennett)

Funding and Philosophical Results (Updated w/ Replies by Dennett)

Suppose you were reviewing a scientific report that drew the conclusion that a diet without fat was in fact unhealthy, and that butter and cream and even bacon in moderation were good for you, and suppose further that the science was impeccable, carefully conducted and rigorously argued. Good news! Yes, but the author acknowledges in fine print that the research was financed by a million dollar grant from the Foundation for the Advancement of Bacon. We would be entitled—obliged—to keep that fact in the limelight. The science may be of the highest quality, honestly and sincerely reported, but do remember that the message delivered was the message hoped for by the funder. 

That’s Daniel Dennett, towards the end of a largely favorable review of Alfred Mele’s recent book, Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free WillIt is supposed to be an analogy to the Mele’s work and its funding by the John Templeton Foundation. (Disclosure: the Templeton Foundation funds a project currently advertising on Daily Nous.) Dennett continues:

It is important to note that Mele’s research, as he scrupulously announces, and not in fine print, is supported by the Templeton Foundation. In fact, Mele is the director of a $4.4m project, “Free Will: Empirical and Philosophical Investigations,” funded by the Templeton Foundation, almost certainly the most munificent funding of any philosopher in history. The Templeton Foundation has a stated aim of asking and answering the “Big Questions,” and its programmes include both science and theology. In fact, yoking its support of science with its support of theology (and “individual freedom and free markets”) is the very core of its strategy. The Templeton Foundation supports, with no strings attached, a great deal of excellent science that is otherwise hard to fund. The Foundation supports theological and ideological explorations as well, and it uses the prestige it garners from its even-handed and generous support of non-ideological science to bolster the prestige of its ideological forays…

The Templeton Foundation insists that it is not anti-science, and demonstrates this with the bulk of its largesse, but it also has an invested interest in keeping science from subverting some of its ideological aspirations, and it just happens that Mele’s work fits handsomely with that goal. 

Mele’s project is not the only Templeton-funded philosophy project, nor is Templeton the only source of funds with an agenda. Dennett is claiming that funding from ideological sources casts a shadow on philosophical research in much the same way that funding from industry casts a shadow on scientific research. Is he correct?

UPDATE: Commenter “amb” informs us that Terrance Tomkow and Kadri Vihvelin reply to Dennett, calling his remarks “disgraceful,” here.

UPDATE 2: Daniel Dennett has replied a couple of times in the comments below.

UPDATE 3: Alfred Mele replies to Dennett here.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter an e-mail address