Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 60 (38742)
05-02-2003 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Primordial Egg
05-01-2003 6:47 AM


Re: Old ground?
Well you didn't actually say what you think Dawkins means by saying that children are born selfish in the post you refer to.
Now you ask me to define selfishness, while you let it be unclear what Dawkins means with children being born selfish. Yhat's not on of course, Dawkins use of selfishness is at issue here not mine.
There are some anti-racist scientists trying to explain racism in terms of Dawkins selfish gene theory. There is just a little difference between that and actual racists using the theory to substantiate their racism. I don't think it's a cheap shot.
To treat your children as selfish can have diverse consequences I guess. As before the point is more that Dawkins encroaches deeply on people's personal freedom, then what his theory actually consists of, or what effect it has.
Dawkins didn't submit a paper for peerreview on the selfish gene theory. What was answered, amounted to undermining the rule for peerreview.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Primordial Egg, posted 05-01-2003 6:47 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by zephyr, posted 05-02-2003 12:25 PM Syamsu has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 32 of 60 (38769)
05-02-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
05-02-2003 3:29 AM


Re: Old ground?
quote:
There are some anti-racist scientists trying to explain racism in terms of Dawkins selfish gene theory. There is just a little difference between that and actual racists using the theory to substantiate their racism. I don't think it's a cheap shot.
Only about as cheap as they come. It still has nothing to do with the usefulness of gene selfishness as a tool for understanding natural selection.
The Bible has been used to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people throughout history. The Koran has been cited as well by murderers seeking legitimacy for their actions. Does that make them both invalid? I don't go around telling people that all Christians are witch-burners and Jew-killers, or that all Muslims are terrorists, because the perversion of a good idea does not make it a bad idea. Nor does that make its supporters (and founders) guilty of the same sins as those who have claimed kinship with them. Dawkins would probably be horrified if your scenario actually took place, because it has nothing to do with his intent. It is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 05-02-2003 3:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 05-04-2003 9:34 AM zephyr has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 60 (38917)
05-04-2003 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by zephyr
05-02-2003 12:25 PM


Re: Old ground?
I think it's worrying when people don't accept inquiry of this sort, also for Christianity and Islam. Dawkins and science generally, is not above moral criticism, because that would undermine the uncertainty of science theories. Dawkins intentions are unclear, as explained before. Considering the history of influential "nazi" darwinists like Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Haeckel, Galton etc. Dawkins knows better then to write an interpretative text like that. He may not be hateful to human races, but he seems intentionally hateful towards religion. Hate of religion communicates well with racial hate. It's not an innocent abstract science paper, as before, I wish it was.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by zephyr, posted 05-02-2003 12:25 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by zephyr, posted 05-05-2003 11:08 AM Syamsu has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 34 of 60 (38999)
05-05-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Syamsu
05-04-2003 9:34 AM


Re: Old ground?
Have you read the entirety of SG? Most of the book simply offers a fresh perspective on the evidence for evolution without advocating anything beyond that. In the end, Dawkins briefly - but quite clearly - advocates rising above the "selfish" nature of evolved organisms and working for the good of all humanity. His intentions, as I deduce them from this book, are not all that different from the worldly aims of major religions. How you can compare him with fascists using Darwin to justify genocide is utterly beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 05-04-2003 9:34 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 05-05-2003 11:13 AM zephyr has not replied
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 05-13-2003 6:58 AM zephyr has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 60 (39000)
05-05-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zephyr
05-05-2003 11:08 AM


Re: Old ground?
Yep, even if ALL means NOT *any I still do not see any way but to read Dawkins' selectionist preference for the gene (level)as nothing but MANY (but not necesarilyt "any" or "all" (whether infinite or finite)catstrophe set projections EACH TIME ONTOGENY OCCURS. It seems one can me more organismally parsinomious but whether or not I have identified the phenomelogical form of Dawkinseque criticism I do not know. It satisfies me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zephyr, posted 05-05-2003 11:08 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 36 of 60 (39915)
05-13-2003 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zephyr
05-05-2003 11:08 AM


Re: Old ground?
Well one of Dawkins scientific predeccossors Konrad Lorenz, was a "fascist using Darwinism to justify genocide." So it's not as if it is impossible that there would be a mainstream Darwinist who would do that. Again, Dawkins book is hateful towards religion, which is an odd thing for a supposedly important scientific text, for it to be hateful. It also has some simplistic political meandering about familyplanning. Many people reading his book find their view of Nature changed from being appreciative of the riches of nature, to a simplistic generalising judgement on Nature as fundamentally "red in tooth and claw". It is hate alround, and then the step from that hate towards racial hate is very small, as I've explained.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zephyr, posted 05-05-2003 11:08 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 12:04 PM Syamsu has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 37 of 60 (39953)
05-13-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Syamsu
05-13-2003 6:58 AM


Re: Old ground?
If you're as familiar with the book as you claim, maybe you can point out a particular phrase or paragraph as hateful to religion. From what I recall, he seemed to say religion was perfectly acceptable to him as long as religious people didn't impose their values on others. Please tell me where he said otherwise. You're still clutching at straws by saying that the possibility of an extreme interpretation equates to the author encouraging that interpretation.
Do you seriously claim that nature is not red in tooth and claw? I find it an inescapable fact. Some of the most beautiful animals are the most vicious, and I still love them. I can view a shark as a remorseless killing machine and still remark upon its efficiency, sleek lines, singular purpose, and absolute effectiveness, not to mention its beauty (as I see it). Apex predators in general are some of the best examples of the "riches of nature." Who are these people you describe, and why do they think that nature cannot be appreciated once we realize it involves violence and killing? My appreciation is only deepened by this understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 05-13-2003 6:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-13-2003 12:11 PM zephyr has replied
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 05-15-2003 11:12 AM zephyr has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 60 (39955)
05-13-2003 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by zephyr
05-13-2003 12:04 PM


Re: Old ground?
I recall reading in 'Selfish gene' where Dawkins considered religious faith as some kind of military innovation besides the tank and the warhorse... there is some grain of truth in it but I woyldn't recommend pointing that out to a fundamnetalist (of any religion).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 12:04 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 12:50 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 39 of 60 (39960)
05-13-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Andya Primanda
05-13-2003 12:11 PM


Re: Old ground?
I think it's a marvelous analogy. Not the only way of looking at it, but certainly informative. It's hard to deny the numbers of people that have been killed in the name of God throughout history. An ongoing tragedy, really. As I've been arguing, ideas can be used many different ways. One could hardly argue that the first Christians ever envisioned the Crusades and witch-burnings of Europe, the Spanish Inquisition, or any of the other atrocities perpetrated by those who followed them. Syamsu's reasoning would place them beside the guilty parties and condemn them by association.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-13-2003 12:11 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 40 of 60 (40239)
05-15-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by zephyr
05-13-2003 12:04 PM


Re: Old ground?
This is the most important theory in the world. If space-aliens come to visit the earth then they would want to know if we know this theory already, to see if we are civilized. This theory can explain our greed, our genorisity etc. I hope psychologists are going to use it.
Who are you to complain about extremist interpretation when defending Dawkins? Dawkins is himself an extremist zealot.
And you see there you go about some "inescapable" conclusion of Nature as "red in tooth and claw", imposing a value. This is not a science finding, although Dawkins makes it out as though it is. We cannot appreciate Nature, if Nature is about the violence and killing, unless we would want to become perverse. What Nature is about is anybodies guess, but by superficial quantitive measurements, Nature is very sedate and peaceful, and I would suppose that even sharks fit this description as peaceful most of the time. Sharks are not machines also. Plants are more like machines, but then they don't seem as fierce so then you and Dawkins disregard them largely, because they don't fit the preconceived notions.
Dawkins conception of "Nature red in tooth and claw" is actually wrong, because Nature from the viewpoint of Natural Selection essentially is about reproduction, and not about the one killing the other. Based on Natural Selection, he should have told about reproduction which makes it so that the "cup of Nature" is always filled. About bountiful Nature overflowing with organisms. Why do you suppose he chose to define Natural Selection by "red in tooth and claw" (competition) in stead of something like "wet in penis and vagina" (reproduction)?
He also made a mistake about the preying mantis, saying it is programmed to kill it's mate, after copulation. It has been found that this only occurs under stressful conditions, yet Dawkins uses it to show gene-selfishness.
The mistakes of Dawkins writing about "selfish genes" are just like those of Lorenz when he writes about "innate aggression". It is prejudicial, improperly supposing scientific certainity over really very subjective observations, and very hateful.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 05-13-2003 12:04 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 05-15-2003 2:58 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 60 (40252)
05-15-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Syamsu
04-08-2003 3:28 PM


quote:
As far as I know Dawkins helped foster the meme idea, contributing to a book by Susan Blackmore on it.
A bit far back on the thread, but was that The Meme Machine? I've been meaning to read that. Anyone able to reccomend/warn away from it? (Maybe in the books forum?)
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 04-08-2003 3:28 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 42 of 60 (40273)
05-15-2003 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Syamsu
05-15-2003 11:12 AM


Re: Old ground?
quote:
This is the most important theory in the world. If space-aliens come to visit the earth then they would want to know if we know this theory already, to see if we are civilized. This theory can explain our greed, our genorisity etc. I hope psychologists are going to use it.
What theory are you talking about? I thought we were comparing views of a semantic shift (and nothing more) regarding evolution, not the theory itself.
quote:
Who are you to complain about extremist interpretation when defending Dawkins? Dawkins is himself an extremist zealot.
I don't recall when you successfully demonstrated this. I asked you for a quote that one could reasonably consider "hateful" to religion and you haven't provided it. That would seem to be the easiest way to support your label.
quote:
And you see there you go about some "inescapable" conclusion of Nature as "red in tooth and claw", imposing a value. This is not a science finding, although Dawkins makes it out as though it is.
I said it was inescapable to me, and that I love nature in spite of it. As far as Dawkins, I think he knows the difference between poetry and science. He writes about the two extensively in Unweaving the Rainbow. Regardless, a few lines from TSG would back up your statement, right? So tell me where he called that a "science finding" or used a similar term.
quote:
We cannot appreciate Nature, if Nature is about the violence and killing, unless we would want to become perverse.
Care to estimate how many animals are killed by others daily? The numbers would be staggering. More than the human population of the earth, probably by orders of magnitude. Even so, nature gives me life, and I must appreciate that.
quote:
What Nature is about is anybodies guess, but by superficial quantitive measurements, Nature is very sedate and peaceful, and I would suppose that even sharks fit this description as peaceful most of the time.
LOL!!! So the fact that they spend most of their time looking for something to kill outweighs the amount of time they spend actually killing? Yes, they are wonderful when they're nurturing their young (for a few weeks at best) or whatever other touching things they do, and I acknowledge, appreciate, and enjoy those things. The other aspects of their nature still remain. In many species, the first shark to hatch will eat every last one of its siblings, thereby increasing its chances of survival. Please don't tell me this requires us to despise them. Nature doesn't have to be warm and fuzzy for me to appreciate it, and I see nothing perverse in that view.
quote:
Sharks are not machines also.
Look, "killing machine" is just a common description, practically stereotypical. Did I say they were machines? I'm only saying that perceiving them in such a way is permissible and does not ruin one's view of life. They kill. They must kill to survive, and they do it extremely well. The frequency of the act is irrelevant, and whether they enjoy it is irrelevant.
quote:
Plants are more like machines, but then they don't seem as fierce so then you and Dawkins disregard them largely, because they don't fit the preconceived notions.
I have no preconceived notions of nature, and plants simply compete in much more subtle ways. They fit just fine in my worldview. But they could just as easily be called selfish. Trees that reach high in the air to take sunlight from lower plants, vines that choke trees, and parasitic plants could all be called violent and selfish, regardless of the time scale on which they act and the less dramatic way in which they starve each other. It's semantics, and that is all it is. I ask again, how much of the book have you actually read?
quote:
Dawkins conception of "Nature red in tooth and claw" is actually wrong, because Nature from the viewpoint of Natural Selection essentially is about reproduction, and not about the one killing the other. Based on Natural Selection, he should have told about reproduction which makes it so that the "cup of Nature" is always filled. About bountiful Nature overflowing with organisms. Why do you suppose he chose to define Natural Selection by "red in tooth and claw" (competition) in stead of something like "wet in penis and vagina" (reproduction)?
I can't speak for him, but it's probably because being fit is not mostly about reproduction. An organism must survive to adulthood by feeding and competing with other animals, sometimes even its own siblings, before it has any chance of reproducing. For almost every animal that has ever lived, this requires killing many other animals (for a predator) or avoiding predators many times (for prey).
quote:
He also made a mistake about the preying mantis, saying it is programmed to kill it's mate, after copulation. It has been found that this only occurs under stressful conditions, yet Dawkins uses it to show gene-selfishness.
So it doesn't happen every time. Doesn't change the fact that the female has a better chance of passing on her genes when she eats the male. Many offspring are her reward for investing the only current available mate. If food is plentiful, the offspring are assured of survival and the investment is unnecessary. One could even view the male as a selfish insect, from a genetic perspective, because his death at the female's hands increases the chance of many offspring surviving to spread his genes. So you don't like calling these behaviors selfish. So you think the idea will be misused. It doesn't change the fact that the concept of selfishness can help explain behaviors that once seemed to contradict natural selection. It is a tool for understanding, and no more.
quote:
The mistakes of Dawkins writing about "selfish genes" are just like those of Lorenz when he writes about "innate aggression". It is prejudicial, improperly supposing scientific certainity over really very subjective observations, and very hateful.
It's a dramatic statement intended to give the reader some perspective on science and evolutionary theory. It's not a theory in itself. Selfishness is a description, one of many ways to understand what we see, and not a call to serve oneself at the expense of others. Once again: show me where hatred is advocated, admitted, or in anyway given a place within the concept of the selfish gene. Show me in Dawkins' words or stop putting your own in his mouth.
Bottom line: "altruistic" behaviors, in the long term, can be favored by natural selection. That's what The Selfish Gene is about. If you want to advance further interpretations, feel free, but you'll have to support your speculation with some quotations for it to carry weight.
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 05-15-2003 11:12 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 05-16-2003 2:04 PM zephyr has not replied
 Message 45 by zephyr, posted 05-26-2003 3:59 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 43 of 60 (40430)
05-16-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by zephyr
05-15-2003 2:58 PM


Re: Old ground?
The first part about space-aliens and psychology is a paraphrase from the book. That shows Dawkins extremism about Darwinism and selfish genes.
He also says that all stories about the origin of life before Darwin, are irrellevant. That is a swipe at religion IMO, especially in the way he says it is hateful. Also to conceive of religion as a weapon like a tank is hateful towards religion, of course.
I'm sorry you either don't see, or won't admit to the error in not viewing Natural Selection as "red in tooth and claw". It is just a metaphore, but he appeals to science for his metaphore, and factually his metaphore is all wrong. Natural Selection is about reproduction, of course, it is commonly defined as differential reproductive success of variants. Competition is not even required to occur for Natural Selection to apply. The book is fundamentally flawed, or more reasonably, misrepresentative, since Dawkins knows full well that selection is about reproduction. He repeatedly says it is about reproduction, but then after that he disregards what he says, and brings out the old "red in tooth and claw" baloney again. I suggest you read the book where he changes from talking about reproduction mainly, and then without explanation begins to talk about competition mainly.
Chances for reproduction can exist, eventhough an organism doesn't actually reproduce at all in the end. They are chances after all.
The book the selfish gene has the effect on people who accept it, to serve themselves in stead of others. Intentions are much besides the point, although as I've shown Dawkins apparent and stated intentions with the book are not those of a regular scientist just wanting to provide accurate knowledge.
The book says that all organisms are basically selfish, and there are some *exceptions* of altruistic traits.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 05-15-2003 2:58 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2003 4:36 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 60 (40447)
05-16-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Syamsu
05-16-2003 2:04 PM


Re: Old ground?
The book the selfish gene has the effect on people who accept it, to serve themselves in stead of others.
You have evidence of this? Did it have this effect on you? To the contrary, the book demonstrates that behavior that is better for the group but negative - even fatal - for the individual can be selected for, genetically.
Intentions are much besides the point, although as I've shown Dawkins apparent and stated intentions with the book are not those of a regular scientist just wanting to provide accurate knowledge.
I don't think Dawkins' intention was anything but to sell books. To do that he needs an engaging read, aimed at the comprehension of people who tend to buy the most books - laypersons. Dawkins isn't trying to do science here, but rather to explain science in an engaging way.
The book says that all organisms are basically selfish, and there are some *exceptions* of altruistic traits.
The book in fact says that genes are selfish, not organisms (hence the title "The Selfish Gene", not "The Selfish Organism".) Altruistic behavior can be considered "self-serving" from the perspective of genes. What about this aren't you getting?
Honestly I haven't even read the book (I've heard the explanations though) and I know this. Your arguments are pretty weak unless you can quote direct passages that support your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 05-16-2003 2:04 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 45 of 60 (41396)
05-26-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by zephyr
05-15-2003 2:58 PM


Re: Old ground?
quote:
I don't recall when you successfully demonstrated this. I asked you for a quote that one could reasonably consider "hateful" to religion and you haven't provided it. That would seem to be the easiest way to support your label.
quote:
Regardless, a few lines from TSG would back up your statement, right? So tell me where he called that a "science finding" or used a similar term.
quote:
I ask again, how much of the book have you actually read?
quote:
Selfishness is a description, one of many ways to understand what we see, and not a call to serve oneself at the expense of others. Once again: show me where hatred is advocated, admitted, or in anyway given a place within the concept of the selfish gene. Show me in Dawkins' words or stop putting your own in his mouth.
quote:
If you want to advance further interpretations, feel free, but you'll have to support your speculation with some quotations for it to carry weight.
Syamsu:
If you haven't noticed this pattern in my previous posts, then you're going to be confused when I stop replying. Ignoring these requests precludes the continuation of substantial debate. As long as you fail to demonstrate that you're even informed about the subject at hand, while repeating your emotionally charged assertions, I cannot post constructively in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 05-15-2003 2:58 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 05-27-2003 7:16 AM zephyr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024