Critique of Richard Dawkin's, "Selfish Gene"
Christian Pecaut
Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene (2nd Edition)
Oxford, England, 1989
266 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index
Annotation in process - 2-12-98 - nm
Annotation still in process - 3-7-98 - note: at 7,000 words
and half done, this annotation is completely out of hand;
more like a critique of the "anti-paradigm"
(sort of like critiqueing the "anti-christ" - ha ha . . . just
kidding . . . sort of)
than a review. Anyway, in its current form,
I don't know what I'm going to do with it exactly.
I wrote about twelve thousand words of answer to eighteen of the
following twenty-six points, back in Febuary, March, and April, but
I've been having enormous difficulties pulling all these papers
together. So, for the moment, I'm just going to post the points
themselves. Hopefully, that will serve some sort of expository
purpose. September 16, 1998
Note: I've left in the link marks for the full paper, but, until and
unless I post it, they won't do much.
Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
Sociobiology in General
I.Introduction.
A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
In Nature's Natural Selection Process.
3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.
B. ENGAGES IN A FAULTY AND INACCURATE OVERLAY BETWEEN SPECIES.
4. The Author Engages In A Grossly Excessive Mixing Of Metaphor
With Literal Reality.
5. Humans as machines - no logical level stuff.
6. Claims that harm to, or killing of, or pain in animals is the
same dynamic as harm to, killing of, or pain in humans.
7. Uses The Terms Sister Brother Son Daughter Mother Father In
Such A Way As To Produce An Exact Overlay In The Reader's Mind Between
An Insect's Operations and A Human's Operations, Hitchcock Style.
8. The "Thin-Stream" Absurdity - Claiming That A One-Generation
Progression Is The Same As A Ten-Thousand Generation Progression.
C. USES A SCIENTIFICALLY INACCURATE IDEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE
BIOECOSYSTEM.
9. Claims that Darwinism is not cooperation.
10. Claims that nature is essentially hostile.
11. Most (99%) of nature is cooperative, but he takes .01% of
the low level operations and calls it the high level system.
12. He Insists That Even When Two Organisms Cooperate, It's In
Order To Make Some Other Entity Lose - Everything, According To This
Dawkins Book, Is "Winner/Loser" - No Understanding Of New
Configurations Simply Increasing The Value Of What Came Before.
13. Presumes that the argument is "Hostile Nature Should Be
'Accepted' vs. Hostile Nature Should Be Thwarted" Rather Than "Nature
Is Cooperative vs. Nature Is Hostile".
D. THE OLD "BIGGER IS BETTER" NONESENSE.
14. Claims that bigger, stronger is better.
15. Uses The Explicitly Derogatory Term "Runt" To Describe A
Smaller-Than-Average Offspring, Explicitly Stating That Said "Runt" Is
Less Worthy Of Survival.
16. Claiming That Larger Organisms Are Better Able To Eat
Smaller Organisms.
E. INNACCURATELY PRESUMES THAT GENES ARE HELPFUL/HARMFUL BEHAVIORAL
DETERMINANT.
17. He Presumes That Helpful-Or-Harmful ("Selfish-Or-Altruistic"
In His Frame Of Thinking) Is Rooted In The Genes.
18. Tit for Tat game tactic is cooperative over many rounds but
human operations are in first round.
F. FAULTY METHODOLOGICAL REASONING.
19. The Author Engages In A Gross Overmixing Of Studies And
Guesses.
20. Glossing over the fact that we share 99% of our genes in
common.
G. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING IS JUST A DECEPTIVE RIP-OFF.
21. Presumes that deception is just another behavioral trait
rather than that deception in humans is extremely destructive.=
22. Presumes The Cuckoo's Operations Involve Deception.
H. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING CANNOT EXIST.
23. He Expresses Rage, I mean RAGE, that a bird of another
species will adopt and care for a Cuckoo Bird.
24. Claims that population explosion of humans is ordinarily
stopped in nature by famine, war plague rather than population
explosion of humans is ordinarily stopped in nature by other
caretaking.
25. Claims that the central, naturally evolved mechanism for
purpose of arresting and solving damage, namely good memory equals
carrying a grudge a deliberately derogatory reference.
I. NO HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SCIENCE IS.
26. He Presumes That All Ideas Of God Or Religion Are Anti-
Science And Fraudulent.
snex
wrote:
you didnt read the book, did you?
Neil W Rickert
>Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
>Sociobiology in General
>I.Introduction.
>A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
> 1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
>Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
That seems a bit unfair. The mathematical models used by
neo-Darwinists don't really depend on anything from Russell and
Whitehead.
> 2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
>On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
>In Nature's Natural Selection Process.
I'm personally not a fan of Dawkins ideas on evolution. But this
seems excessive.
> 3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
>And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.
You disagree with it. So do I. But that does not make it an
absolute fraud.
>B. ENGAGES IN A FAULTY AND INACCURATE OVERLAY BETWEEN SPECIES.
> 4. The Author Engages In A Grossly Excessive Mixing Of Metaphor
>With Literal Reality.
The book is a popularization of science. It isn't intended as a
research monograph. There is nothing wrong with using metaphor for
this kind of work.
I could continue with your other points. But I won't bother.
You discredit yourself by your extreme accusations. You seem to be
criticizing the book as something it was never intended to be.
I'm not sure which particular axe you are grinding, but you have
blunted it with your penchant for overstatement.
Ernest Major
<ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>> 2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
>>On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
>>In Nature's Natural Selection Process.
>
>I'm personally not a fan of Dawkins ideas on evolution. But this seems
>excessive.
I'd be surprised to find this omitted from the book "The Selfish Gene",
but the idea definitely includes the gene's effect on the surrounding
ecosystem. His later book "The Extended Phenotype" focuses heavily on
that idea.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ross Langerak
"Christian Pecaut" <workoutw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177387307....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.imaginenine.com/pdmnm565.htm
Richard Dawkins (aka - Richy Dawkins, Dick Dawkins, Tricky Dawkins, and The
Pope)
101 Recipes For A Precaut (2nd Edition)
Oxford, England, 1989
266 pages plus notes, bibliography, bibleidolatry, secretaries,
receptionists, assistants, greeters, bouncers, words, numbers, quotes,
unquotes, quote-unquotes,
boom-chugga-lugga-lugga-boom-chugga-lugga-lugga-boom-chugga-lugga-lugga, and
ibex.
Too much sugar, not enough sleep.
Peter Barber
wrote:
> http://www.imaginenine.com/pdmnm565.htm
>
> <snip>
Very good. Now go through your list again, finding the passages in the
book that support your assertions, and insert citations to those
passages. Otherwise, it's just a list of assertions.
And Stop Capitalising Every Word. It Makes You Look Like One Of Those
Conspiracy Theory Nutters Who Believes That The CIA And Mossad Are
Causing The Genocide In Darfur, And The News Networks Organised The
Shootings At Virginia Tech -
Oh, I should've guessed. You *are*!
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> http://www.imaginenine.com/pdmnm565.htm
>
> Richard Dawkins
> The Selfish Gene (2nd Edition)
> Oxford, England, 1989
> 266 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index
<snip>
> Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
> Sociobiology in General
> I.Introduction.
>
> A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
>
> 1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
> Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
could you explain this. As I remember there wasn't a great deal of
mathematics in Selfish Gene, so how is this relevent?
<snip>
most of what you write is simply assertion without evidence.
<snip>
> D. THE OLD "BIGGER IS BETTER" NONESENSE.
>
> 14. Claims that bigger, stronger is better.
this is a straight lie.
<snip>
> G. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING IS JUST A DECEPTIVE RIP-OFF.
what *is* "caretaking"?
<snip>
> 22. Presumes The Cuckoo's Operations Involve Deception.
it doesn't?
>
> H. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING CANNOT EXIST.
>
> 23. He Expresses Rage, I mean RAGE, that a bird of another
> species will adopt and care for a Cuckoo Bird.
so other birds raise cuckoo young at the expense of their own
because they *like* cuckoos?
> 24. Claims that population explosion of humans is ordinarily
> stopped in nature by famine, war plague rather than population
> explosion of humans is ordinarily stopped in nature by other
> caretaking.
that majik word again.
> 25. Claims that the central, naturally evolved mechanism for
> purpose of arresting and solving damage, namely good memory equals
> carrying a grudge a deliberately derogatory reference.
>
> I. NO HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SCIENCE IS.
>
> 26. He Presumes That All Ideas Of God Or Religion Are Anti-
> Science And Fraudulent.
ah yes. His ideas on religion are a bit batty. I thought Selfish Gene
was pretty well clear of anti-religious ranting.
--
Nick Keighley
John Harshman
[snip]
> Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
> Sociobiology in General
> I.Introduction.
>
> A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
>
> 1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
> Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
>
> 2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
> On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
> In Nature's Natural Selection Process.
>
> 3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
> And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.
>
OK, stop it right there. This "outline" is useless by itself. If you
intend any sort of critique, you will have to explain your objections,
because so far I don't understand what you're trying to get at in any
single case. A critique must contain arguments that explain *why* the
author is wrong.
Desertphile
<workoutw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.imaginenine.com/pdmnm565.htm
>
> Richard Dawkins
> The Selfish Gene (2nd Edition)
> Oxford, England, 1989
> 266 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index
>
> Annotation in process - 2-12-98 - nm
>
> Annotation still in process - 3-7-98 - note: at 7,000 words
> and half done, this annotation is completely out of hand;
> more like a critique of the "anti-paradigm"
> (sort of like critiqueing the "anti-christ" - ha ha . . . just
> kidding . . . sort of)
> than a review. Anyway, in its current form,
> I don't know what I'm going to do with it exactly.
>
> I wrote about twelve thousand words of answer to eighteen of the
> following twenty-six points, back in Febuary, March, and April, but
> I've been having enormous difficulties pulling all these papers
> together. So, for the moment, I'm just going to post the points
> themselves. Hopefully, that will serve some sort of expository
> purpose. September 16, 1998
>
> Note: I've left in the link marks for the full paper, but, until and
> unless I post it, they won't do much.
Golly, such a sad waste of time and effort.
Even if Richard Dawkins' book is 100% wrong, evolution still
occured and still occurs.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[re Dawkins]
> ah yes. His ideas on religion are a bit batty.
Only when he allows them to sneak into books that are not
about that topic. _An Ancestor's Tale_ was marred by the
references to creationists.
But he's spot-on in his ideas about such things. It is the case
that anybody who doubts evolution is badly misinformed, telling
a lie, or insane. And it is the case that large fractions of the
pain, suffering, and waste in the world arise due to religions.
Especially the needless pain etc. I was quite pleased that
he wrote _The God Delusion_ as hopefully now he won't feel
the need to stick side-long attacks on the god nutters into
books about interesting biological things. He's got a good place
for all of that stuff where I can read it when I want it. So now
he can get on with the biology in the biology books.
> I thought Selfish Gene
> was pretty well clear of anti-religious ranting.
It did.
Socks
dkomo
>
> ah yes. His ideas on religion are a bit batty. I thought Selfish Gene
> was pretty well clear of anti-religious ranting.
>
Clear of religious ranting as well, which may bother the OP.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
eccentric. You should in stead criticize people who read Dawkins, who
as far as I can tell, knowingly engage in a guilty pleasure when
reading books with titles such as "Selfish Gene", "God delusion",
"Devil's Chaplain". Of course sometimes I also criticize Dawkins
because that is the more obvious thing to do, but really you should
try to criticize the readers of Dawkins in stead because that's where
the evil is at, eventhough that's a more complicated thing to do.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Perplexed in Peoria
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1177450821....@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Nando, you are an evil piece of shit!
But I'm not sure whether it is because you read Dawkins, or because
you criticize him without first reading him.
Mike Ruskai
<workoutw...@gmail.com> dribble thusly:
[snip 26 odd sentences that demonstrate he didn't read the book]
Perhaps you should just pick one strawman to attack, and maybe you can
make it sound even plausibly real. As it is, your 26 individual
pieces of straw aren't even entertaining.
--
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>IMO it's wrong to criticize Dawkins because he's just an English
>eccentric. You
Who?
> should in stead criticize people who read Dawkins, who
>as far as I can tell, knowingly engage in a guilty pleasure when
>reading books with titles such as "Selfish Gene", "God delusion",
>"Devil's Chaplain". Of course sometimes I also criticize Dawkins
>because that is the more obvious thing to do, but really you
Who?
> should
>try to criticize the readers of Dawkins in stead because that's where
>the evil is at, eventhough that's a more complicated thing to do.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
JQ
wrote:
Actually it does, albiet quite briefly. He then wrote The Extended
Phenotype, which I strongly suggest you read.
>
> 3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
> And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.
Could you explain what you mean and what is wrong with it?
>
> B. ENGAGES IN A FAULTY AND INACCURATE OVERLAY BETWEEN SPECIES.
>
> 4. The Author Engages In A Grossly Excessive Mixing Of Metaphor
> With Literal Reality.
He does love metaphor a bit too much, doesn't he?
>
> 5. Humans as machines - no logical level stuff.
I saw nothing wrong with his description of humans as machines. Could
you explain why you found a problem with this?
>
> 6. Claims that harm to, or killing of, or pain in animals is the
> same dynamic as harm to, killing of, or pain in humans.
What's wrong with this?
>
> 7. Uses The Terms Sister Brother Son Daughter Mother Father In
> Such A Way As To Produce An Exact Overlay In The Reader's Mind Between
> An Insect's Operations and A Human's Operations, Hitchcock Style.
He speaks in terms of genes. Genetically, the offspring of your
parents are your siblings. Where's the problem? His terminology is
accurate.
>
> 8. The "Thin-Stream" Absurdity - Claiming That A One-Generation
> Progression Is The Same As A Ten-Thousand Generation Progression.
>
> C. USES A SCIENTIFICALLY INACCURATE IDEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE
> BIOECOSYSTEM.
>
> 9. Claims that Darwinism is not cooperation.
This is an outright lie.
>
> 10. Claims that nature is essentially hostile.
He most definitely does not.
>
> 11. Most (99%) of nature is cooperative, but he takes .01% of
> the low level operations and calls it the high level system.
Did you even read the book or just the title?
>
> 12. He Insists That Even When Two Organisms Cooperate, It's In
> Order To Make Some Other Entity Lose - Everything, According To This
> Dawkins Book, Is "Winner/Loser" - No Understanding Of New
> Configurations Simply Increasing The Value Of What Came Before.
He devotes about half a chapter to explaining why this view is WRONG.
He is very insistent about the existence of win-win scenarios.
>
> 13. Presumes that the argument is "Hostile Nature Should Be
> 'Accepted' vs. Hostile Nature Should Be Thwarted" Rather Than "Nature
> Is Cooperative vs. Nature Is Hostile".
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. Get a modern version of the book; he's answered
all these misconceptions.
>
> D. THE OLD "BIGGER IS BETTER" NONESENSE.
>
> 14. Claims that bigger, stronger is better.
No he doesn't. Where does he say this? He says, continually, that in
evolutionary terms 'fitter' means MORE SUITED TO SURVIVE IN ITS
ENVIRONMENT. He says this in all of his biology books.
>
> 15. Uses The Explicitly Derogatory Term "Runt" To Describe A
> Smaller-Than-Average Offspring, Explicitly Stating That Said "Runt" Is
> Less Worthy Of Survival.
In particular examples where smaller size is indeed less suited to
survival.
>
> 16. Claiming That Larger Organisms Are Better Able To Eat
> Smaller Organisms.
>
> E. INNACCURATELY PRESUMES THAT GENES ARE HELPFUL/HARMFUL BEHAVIORAL
> DETERMINANT.
How is this inaccurate?
>
> 17. He Presumes That Helpful-Or-Harmful ("Selfish-Or-Altruistic"
> In His Frame Of Thinking) Is Rooted In The Genes.
Well, it's heritable, so it probably is literally in the genes. Even
if it isn't, refer to his defenition of gene for the purposes of his
work.
>
> 18. Tit for Tat game tactic is cooperative over many rounds but
> human operations are in first round.
Tit for tat was pitted against other automated systems. Not knowing
what system you're pitting it against, the first round is essentially
random. Dawkins explains how the imbalance between 'cooperative' and
'uncooperative' automated systems affected tit for tat's success. At
length.
>
> F. FAULTY METHODOLOGICAL REASONING.
>
> 19. The Author Engages In A Gross Overmixing Of Studies And
> Guesses.
I agree that it may appear so given that he often slips into
speculation and metaphor without warning.
>
> 20. Glossing over the fact that we share 99% of our genes in
> common.
This is irrelevant to every single argument he makes.
>
> G. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING IS JUST A DECEPTIVE RIP-OFF.
>
> 21. Presumes that deception is just another behavioral trait
> rather than that deception in humans is extremely destructive.=
How is this innacurate?
>
> 22. Presumes The Cuckoo's Operations Involve Deception.
I thought that that was just obvious.
>
> H. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING CANNOT EXIST.
>
> 23. He Expresses Rage, I mean RAGE, that a bird of another
> species will adopt and care for a Cuckoo Bird.
He discusses the 'enslavement' of other birds for the cuckoo's
benefit. I didn't detect any rage in his tone, but I don't find cuckoo
behaviour all that attractive either.
>
> 24. Claims that population explosion of humans is ordinarily
> stopped in nature by famine, war plague rather than population
> explosion of humans is ordinarily stopped in nature by other
> caretaking.
Could you explain this please?
>
> 25. Claims that the central, naturally evolved mechanism for
> purpose of arresting and solving damage, namely good memory equals
> carrying a grudge a deliberately derogatory reference.
Um... I think that you may have some trouble following Dawkins'
methods of discussion. You seem to have misunderstood several points.
>
> I. NO HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SCIENCE IS.
>
> 26. He Presumes That All Ideas Of God Or Religion Are Anti-
> Science And Fraudulent.
No he doesn't (although he certainly doesn't like religion, does he?)
Whenever he refers to specific religious claims as unscientific it is
bacause they are unscientific. He does not suggest that all religious
people are anti-scientific. I find no errors on this point. Could you
explain where you got this impression?