Dawkins

Richard Dawkins seems to evoke strong emotions on both sides of the creation / evo debate. The first time I heard of Dawkins was when he gave the Royal Institution Christmas lectures in 1994 - I remember being impressed by the forcefulness of his arguments and his apparent honesty in wanting to tackle the difficult issues (one thing I distinctly recall was how he compared the geographical distribution of scientists who believed that a meteorite wiped out the dinosaurs (no real pattern), with the geographical distribution of people who hold particular religious views (clear contiguous areas))I'm currently reading 'The Extended Phenotype' and I have to say I find it refreshingly lucid and very persuasive. Dawkins does a very good job in explaining the tenets of biological evolution to a lay audience. He does have a slight tendency towards the overly poetic, but I can forgive him this because he uses these concepts as tools for understanding (genes are "selfish", naure is "pitilessly indifferent"). I also find distasteful the cult of peronality which seems to have congregated around him (I have this vision of Dawkins, like Brian in "Life of Brian" shouting "I'm not the messiah! You have to work it out for yourselves!" to which the crowd slavishly respond in unison "Yes! We have to work it out for ourselves!") - I don't think he's eliberately fostered it, but then he hasn't exactly been beating his fans off with a broom handle either (mind you - would you?).That said, I'm interested to know what the serious criticisms of Dawkins are, as I haven't come across any substantive ones thus far. Personally, I'd lump his areas of contention into three main areas:1) his rabid atheism. This has gotten more pronounced since Sept 11, before which he claims to have regarded religion as 'harmless nonsense'. We're pretty much in agreement here.2) his concept of memes. Originally designed as an aid to better understanding genetic evolution, this is an idea that has takn off without him to an embarrasing degree. Although I'd agree with critics, and Dawkins himself, who say that the idea of memes isn't scientific per se, I'd say that it doesn't need to be scientific in order to aid understanding or to provide a new way of looking at things - it certainly helped me understand the propagation of religion (as a meme complex, or mind virus).3) this whole phyletic gradulaism vs punc. eq kerfuffle. Not being particularly versed in Gould's arguments for punc. eq, I'm not sure why Dawkins views on this would be considered controversial, especially as (correct me if I'm wrong) his views are the mainstream.Another thing noteworthy of both Dawkins and (the late) Gould is their steadfast refusal to publicly debate, or indeed have anything to do with, creationists. Before Gould died, the two of them were working on a joint letter to send to US scientists on why they should not debate creationists as it gave creationism a veneer of respectability which it didn't deserve. Think of Stephen Hawking publicly debating a flat-earther and you've got a pretty fair analogy.Not only this but also his close friendship and mutual influence on Douglas Adams, one of the funniest English language writers in recent history, makes Dawkins a thoroughly good egg in my book.PE

PE,Slightly off topic, but I'm reading "Genetics,Paleontology, & Macroevolution" by Jeffrey Levinton, & he has just touched on Punk Eek.Levintons conclusion is that it was a largely unnecessary hypothesis. Simpson & Mayr had already indicated they had thought of it (or something akin to it) 20 years previously, & current models of speciation & morphological change relative to changing ecology (or ecological stasis) already predict rapid change followed by stasis etc. The problem with PE is that it is too absolute in it's predictions (most morphological change occurs at speciation), & as such, when we see phyletic gradualism in the pre-synthesis sense, followed by a rapid burst of change, we have to observe that this is more consistent with already existing theory. For example, the morphological norm is stasis in an ecologically stable environment. The adaptive peaks are too far apart to be jumped by normal intraspecific variation, so stabilising selection is at work. But what happens when the enironment changes, shifting the adaptive peaks closer together? Normal variation could jump in short shrift from one to the other, giving us our rapid burst of change. The difference is, that this model already exists, & isn't associated with cladogenetic speciation per se. In short, the already existing models are better supported by the fossil record, & observations of morphologically identical sibling species than PE. Levinton concludes, "Punctuated Equilibrium" is a theory looking for a problem".I think Dawkins would probably agree with Levinton.When I really started getting into evolutionary theory I thought PE was pretty elegant, the more I read, however, the more I see why the rest of science has problems with it. I'm with Levinton & Dawkins.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-08-2003]

If it was just rabid atheism, then I think people in general and religious folk particularly wouldn't mind so much. It's the "religious" emotionality injected into science that is found to be offensive, the "selifsh" genes you mention which explains "greed" etc.I should say though that I think Dawkins is easy picking for preachers. I've seen some argumentation from a preacher like: if you don't believe in God, then all you are left with is blind, pitiless indifference as Dawkins shows. Very effective preaching IMO, except that the people preached to would not likely know who Dawkins is.I've seen some criticism of paediatricians about his comment about people being born "selfish", and generally in science such commentary is frowned upon.You should remember that he hasn't published his work for peerreview, where criticism on his theories might have been more thorough. I think that formalizing his ideas into hypotheses submitting them for peerreview would show them to be without content. The late Gould said the selfish gene theory is false.As far as I know Dawkins helped foster the meme idea, contributing to a book by Susan Blackmore on it. That work carries the same moralistic tendencies as Dawkins own work does.Could there be a relationship between Dawkins lack of religion and him injecting emotionality into sciencetheories ? One substituting the other?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My reading of "The Selfish Gene" didn't lead me to the same place as others seem to have gotten. Mabye I've forgotten something.It seems to me that the "selfishness" is just a metaphor. Only genes that cause phenotypes or behaviours that promopt their reproduction will proliferate. Calling this "selfish" is poetic at best and anthropomorphizing at worst but it doesn't change the underlying description of what is going on.Can anyone straighten me out on this?

No, you're absolutely right. The whole point of the "selfish gene" idea is that our genes are "selfish" in a metaphorical sense in that any benefit they have for us is only because it also benefits the gene's chance of reproduction.Syamasu has been on this mistaken track for years. Unfortunately it takes him a long time to learn anything.I think one of the reasons Dawkins comes in for so much hostility from creationists is that he wrote a best selling pop-science book defending evolution.

quote:

---

I should say though that I think Dawkins is easy picking for preachers. I've seen some argumentation from a preacher like: if you don't believe in God, then all you are left with is blind, pitiless indifference as Dawkins shows. Very effective preaching IMO, except that the people preached to would not likely know who Dawkins is.

​

I've seen some criticism of paediatricians about his comment about people being born "selfish", and generally in science such commentary is frowned upon.

---

Dawkins is often accused of this, but I'd say it was either people genuinely misunderstanding him, or people who read into his work what they wanted to read. Here's a quote from the preface of Unweaving the Rainbow: What Dawkins does offer, is, if you like, a human figurehead inadvertently championing for the absence of an absolute morality. It is precisely because what he advocates means that there are no "absolute" moral code sitting "out there" that his notions are so commonly misunderstood. To say that the gene is selfish does not necessarily follow that the organism should be. Indeed Dawkins goes out of his way to talk about casting off the shackles off our Darwinian heritage and towards a more humane society.What else do you think he could do?

quote:

---

You should remember that he hasn't published his work for peerreview, where criticism on his theories might have been more thorough. I think that formalizing his ideas into hypotheses submitting them for peerreview would show them to be without content. The late Gould said the selfish gene theory is false.

---

Dawkins hasn't had any material published for peer review? I think you're mistaken. Unless you're talking specifically about whether he's had any papers on the idea of the gene being selfish published, which I don't know about. I'm not sure why this would be considered a scientific idea though, as he's saying that more understanding of biological evolution is achieved when you cast the gene in the central role of replicator, as opposed to the organism. Its more of a way of looking at things than a scientific, testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?

quote:

---

As far as I know Dawkins helped foster the meme idea, contributing to a book by Susan Blackmore on it. That work carries the same moralistic tendencies as Dawkins own work does.

---

Well, he did invent them, and he wrote the introduction to Susan Blackmore's book. As above, I think the "moralistic tendencies" you refer to are projected onto the concept by the beholder to be honest - I don't see any here.

quote:

---

Could there be a relationship between Dawkins lack of religion and him injecting emotionality into sciencetheories ? One substituting the other?

---

I suppose thats possible, but I don't have religion and I don't find myself imbueing scientific concepts with tinseltown poetry and fruity sonnets from the stygian depths of my heart. Are you implying that religion satisfies some creative "emotionality" in life, which, if a person is not religious, they have to attain by some other means....a sort of quantity theory of spirituality?PE

I think the line of reasoning goes something like:- genes are selfish
- (therefore) nature is selfish
- therefore we should be selfishAnd its this conclusion that creationists (and many evolutionists) object to. Its the same mindset that thinks certain yoghurts are better for you because they're labelled as "natural" - a kind of subconscious "Gaia knows best" notion nestled in the not-to-be-questioned primeval recesses of the brain.IMO its also more to do with the way many people think - reading Dawkins would tend to give the reader a sense in which the moral absolutes, the certainties we can hang our hats onto, are no longer there and there's nothing in his writing sufficiently simple (or even elegant enough)to fill that void except unwittingly, the fact that genes are selfish. Which I guess, is why he's gone to such pains to try to clarify his position (writing Unweaving the Rainbow for example).So I don't think its Dawkins' fault that he's misunderstood. But then neither do I think it is the fault of the reader either. An inevitable misunderstanding perhaps, a clash of paradigms.Which is as close to a complete cop-out as you're ever likely to witness PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-08-2003]

MarkI'm not going to pretend to be in any way knowledgeable about the punk eek debate, but I remember hearing of several cases (can't recall exactly which but I'll dig them out if needed) where the environment changed rapidly but the species remained relatively static. I guess Punk Eek would argue that this is to be expected in the majority of cases.It seems to me that Punk Eek is no different from gradualism as long as the underlying mechanism is the same.PE

I feel that the point is being missed here. I thought that Dawkin's thesis was not that genes are SELFISH, but that GENES are selfish.
He is saying that we should look at evolution from the gene's point of view, not that of the organism (phenotype) or species.
Mike.

Mike

quote:

---

I feel that the point is being missed here. I thought that Dawkin's thesis was not that genes are SELFISH, but that GENES are selfish.

---

I have it as more of a GENES are SELFISH You: Me (earlier post): I'm lost. Are we not saying the same thing here?PE

If Dawkins seriously wished not to be misunderstood, he could have done things like present a formal hypothesis of his theory for peerreview that is not interpretative. His new theory being "selfishness" ( of genes and individuals), genic selection already having been invented before by other Darwinists, notably his own mentor. Natural Selection is also "just" a way of looking at things, it's just looking at reproductionrates in a comparitive way. Maybe we should consider Natural Selection as non-science then also, hmmm...Specially when Dawkins ties "selfishness" to "greed" it's clear that he himself causes the "misunderstanding". He makes no mention of a formal definition of greed. Dawkins expressely wants you to explain your own psychological make-up in terms of selfish genes. It's not like he wants you to simply ignore selfish genes in your daily life. To free yourself of the shackles of your selfish genes, is advocating a morality. I wish he would not advocate a morality.Right, everybody is religious IMO whether they like to or not, including communists. I'm pretty sure many people who accept Dawkins ideas, often think in terms of selfish genes and memes to understand their own motives, and the motives of others. This would make up part of their religious identity. Dawkins finding that there probably is no purpose involved in the ultimate fate of the cosmos is also religion, and not science. It seems Dawkins sees that probability of lack of purpose as being indicated by science though. It wouldn't surprise me if he has lots and lots of moments contemplating the "blind pitiless indifference" of the cosmos, in his personal life, where in a similar way other religionists contemplate the "universal love" of the cosmos in many moments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

If Dawkins seriously wished not to be misunderstood, he could have done things like present a formal hypothesis of his theory for peerreview that is not interpretative. His new theory being "selfishness" ( of genes and individuals), genic selection already having been invented before by other Darwinists, notably his own mentor.

---

Remember, the target audience we're aiming for here are the preachers (for which Dawkins is "easy pickings") and the paediatricians (who have to deal with the fact that babies are born selfish), who have taken an unintended message from Dawkins pop science work. How would a peer reviewed publication of the suitability of a particular metaphor to biological evolution help either? The best Dawkins can do is to use the same communication channels to reiterate what he's been saying all along, no?

quote:

---

Natural Selection is also "just" a way of looking at things, it's just looking at reproductionrates in a comparitive way. Maybe we should consider Natural Selection as non-science then also, hmmm...

---

There's a world of difference between an illustrative metaphor and an unambiguous physical description, as you well know.After Einstein cam out with his General Theory of Relativity, spacetime was likened to a rubber sheet with a mass being an indentation upon this rubber sheet. Would you suggest that this analogy should have been submitted to peer review?

quote:

---

Specially when Dawkins ties "selfishness" to "greed" it's clear that he himself causes the "misunderstanding". He makes no mention of a formal definition of greed. Dawkins expressely wants you to explain your own psychological make-up in terms of selfish genes. It's not like he wants you to simply ignore selfish genes in your daily life. To free yourself of the shackles of your selfish genes, is advocating a morality. I wish he would not advocate a morality

---

I don't see anything wrong in freeing yourself from the shackles of your selfish genes, or even explaining human behaviour in terms of selfish genes. I don't see anything wrong with advocating a morality that is generous and altruistic - I'm surprised that you have a difficulty with this, to be honest.

quote:

---

Right, everybody is religious IMO whether they like to or not, including communists.

---

I don't agree with this - granted that its largely semantic, but if everybody is religious, then what use is the word? I don't consider myself religious, but you would choose to label me religious....the old adage atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair colour springs to mind.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure many people who accept Dawkins ideas, often think in terms of selfish genes and memes to understand their own motives, and the motives of others. This would make up part of their religious identity. Dawkins finding that there probably is no purpose involved in the ultimate fate of the cosmos is also religion, and not science. It seems Dawkins sees that probability of lack of purpose as being indicated by science though. It wouldn't surprise me if he has lots and lots of moments contemplating the "blind pitiless indifference" of the cosmos, in his personal life, where in a similar way other religionists contemplate the "universal love" of the cosmos in many moments.

---

All of this may well be true, but is it undesirable? Given that the message is that genes acting in their own self-interest can foster co-operative behaviour at the level of the phenotype, then what exactly do you find objectionable with this view of the world?Is it not the job of science to take over areas of thought previously reserved for religion?PEedit typos[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-09-2003]

I disagree with that too, and often feel that
those I have come across that claim atheism
to be a religion don't understand the
difference between rejection of a concept based
upon available evidence, and acceptance of a
concept based upon conditioning.

Agreed, although if I were to play Devil's Advocate for a short second, I suppose that Foucault-quothing post modernists might argue that what the scientific establishment calls evidence is a product of power structures and social conditioning itself.But then again, show me a post modernist at 35,000 feet...PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-09-2003]

Dawkins presents "selfishness" as a technical term not as a metaphore, but then he convolutes his term by relating it to greed, genorisity, altruism, selfishness etc.When there is a formal treatment of his theory, then anybody who misinterprets could simply be pointed to the formal treatment for correction. His work is very interpretative, meaning different things to different people, one interpretation not neccessarily being more correct then the other, given the text.It's a freedom of religion issue. It doesn't matter what it says, it's just that he brings the morality as some kind of science finding. In my assesment to recast your morality in terms of selfish genes would lead to an ultra-rationalist morality. The people would tend to have less emotional intelligence I guess, knowing their emotions by formula's mainly.Darwinists already tried reinventing morality, absolutely nothing new here. The result was much benign materialist positivism, and also much not so benign superiority thinking. I'd take postmodernism over that any day, but reading Dawkins it seems eerily questionable if I have a meaningful right to choose one or the other.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu