...to be honest, I would have to do a bit of reading to get into a detailed discussion of the ontological implications of Dawkins or Goulds view of reductionism.

It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I would need to find the time, as I already have four other books on the go.

Maybe in a few weeks hence?

Marcus,

You are British? Wish to confirm your context. I will follow that thread, but am not usually interested in the politics of scientists. I have already made my views there quite clear, so I won't repeat myself.

I take it there is no interest in discussing the ontological implications of his reductionism?

Cordially

Ted

I think you may have mis-understood me. There is no heavy philosophical discussion of Dawkins here - but there is an article about Dawkins' TV documentary - and ensuing discussion of his politics.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/617

As well as a special theory by Casey, which was inspired by Dawkins' Meme theory. This is a bit of discussion following that too.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/811

So, don't bother combing for any other discussion on Dawkins here. Unless, someone had one when I was not looking

Marcus,

I am sorry, I am new to this list, (if not to biology or Rand) and did not know the issue had been debated before.

I'll buy you Mayr, if You'll buy me Sterelny! $89.99 is a bit too rich for me, sight unseen. Maybe if I can find it used, but to me it would be like arguing between religion and relativism, a lose/lose situation.

I assume the string to which you refer is still available? I will gladly read it and comment. Did it address reductionism vs. emergence? Were my comments on hylomorphism versus materialism opaque? That would be something upon which I could post at length and with pleasure.

I do most strongly recommend Mayr, it was he who defined what he calls the "biological species concept" in the 40's, the idea that species are not types, but sexually isolated populations. (Of course, this would only apply to Eucaryotes.) I believe much of our misunderstanding may rest on your not having read him, and do be aware that I am often more critical of Gould than of Dawkins. Mayr's best are Systematics and the Origin of Species in reprint, Evolution and the Diversity of Life (essays) and Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, a history & manifesto. He's worth checking out on Amazon, and available used quite cheap. I haven't read What Makes Biology Unique? yet. His other available works are either technical works on birds or too introductory, the ones I quote are the meat of his theoretics

I've had the last two weeks off, and am now back at work. Will read Devil's Chaplin again, as I said. Will look for previous argument on this list.

Thank You

Ted

I haven't read Ernst Mayr, but I have read the book "Dawkins vs. Gould" by Kim Sterelny - who happens to be coincidentally - a New Zealand philosophy lecturer from the city where I grew up.

If you want to debate with me the science of evolution, or his philosophy of science, then please give me concrete examples.

Being new, you might not realize that Dawkin's work has already been discussed and debated to a certain extent on this website.

You might like to read the following threads first:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/617

http://www.solopassion.com/node/811

Marcus,

There is no "debate" in my head. I enjoy Dawkins' writing style (except for his occasional political asides) and find him very thought provoking, but don't agree with the speculations I criticized or with his reductionist materialism. You are collapsing the style of his writing and the point of his arguments to his "work" and then asking me to answer whether I like or dislike the package. Ernst Mayr (Do you know who Mayr is? Have you read him? - I ask only from curiosity, not as an accusation!) criticizes Dawkins' reductionist arguments, and I agree with Mayr's criticisms. But I wouldn't recommend Mayr's dry style for those looking for a casual read. I believe that Rand would have seen Dawkins' other claim to fame - "the meme" - to be an invalid concept, and I can also make that argument myself, assuming you care to dispute it.

About what could I have made up my mind sooner? I liked Dawkins' writing style from the beginning, and disagreed with his genic selectionism...from the beginning. The theoretical debate about the proper level of selection is quite well known, and Gould, Dawkins, and Mayr all disagreed. I have read and enjoyed all three, but usually agree with Mayr.

I have not asked you to take the time or to have the inclination "to make up my mind for me." I am not some sort of wet-eared coward who finds that kind of Randian rhetoric stupefying. I could engage in it too, but am making a very civil attempt to engage you. All I ask is that you choose one or several of the numbered statements I made below to disagree with, and stop trying to psychologize me.

I believe my words are clear enough. If you simply don't want to address them, then don't bother to address me, I will drop it. We can leave it that you think he's a great atheist and that I think atheism alone is just not that exciting, and not worth lionizing a socialist whose fame rests on two dubious speculation. But since you work in the biological field, I thought you might enjoy arguing over biological theory, as would I. I humbly beg you (or anyone else interested) to address the theoretical biological issues I have raised, or let me know which one you might want me to clarify further. (I can imagine the possibility that it may have been the terseness of my lengthy statements below that may be causing us not to engage on the issues. I will be happy to clarify any term of mine you quote. I have not once resorted to calling your opinions weird or confused.)

Ted Keer, Sep. 11, 2006, NYC

BTW, My favourite book of Dawkins' from memory was The Blind Watchmaker. I just last week finished The Ancestor's Tale. And I have gotten Devil's Chaplin down from my shelf to peruse, assuming we can continue this thread.

...Ted, that you have not raised any points against Dawkin's writing. You have just made accusations.

You seem to be having an internal debate inside your own head whether or not you like his work. Why the hell did you bother reading "all" of his popular works if you dislike his work then? Surely, you could have made your mind up sooner. Or perhaps you need to read Dawkin's next book as well?

I do not have the time or inclination to make your mind up for you.

Marcus,

I have made many specific claims, the only one of which you explicitly addressed was my assertion that Dawkins' is reputed to be a Marxist. I withdrew that as a claim about his politics. I have argued and to continue to maintain that, inter alia: (1) Dawkins is a reductionist, (2) a materialist, (3) a self-promoting popularizer; (4) That his theory of selection at the gene level is wrong, (5) as only organisms are units of selection; (6) That Dawkins' theory of the "meme" is unscientific and (7) epistemologically self defeating; [8] That Dawkins’ atheism and hostility to religion is in itself of no great credit; (9) That Rand would not have necessarily found common cause with him on that basis alone; (10) That Rand did find common cause with religious people, [Isabel Paterson] (11) and that she would not have made common cause with atheists for the mere fact of their atheism outside the overall context of their beliefs.

If we are going to speak of incredulity or bafflement here, I think I have quite as much right to it as you. Given that you have not addressed any single one of my statements about Dawkins save his doubtful Marxism, you have not addressed my criticism of him for his reductionism, you have not answered any of my direct questions to you, and have not told me which of my statements you do not understand or which people or concepts I have referred to whose meaning or relevance you do not understand, I don't know what to say further, other than reread my posts if you wish, answer my direct questions to you, and challenge any one of my statements that you like.

I am still quite willing to engage you in debate on any of the issues we have raised. At this point, it would seem that you admit Dawkins' unoriginality, and do not attempt to refute my [admittedly preliminary] criticisms of him. Yet you continue to resort to asking what my "problem” is, calling my opinions weird without identifying to which opinions you refer, and claiming not to understand me - as if that were in itself a refutation of anything I have said.

I will once again extend the benefit of the doubt, ask that you re-read my posts with the aim of understanding them, and ask me to clarify any statement you find opaque. I have repeatedly addressed the ideas involved, not your psycho-epistemology or what I will here go so far as to identify as your apparent willingness to make common cause with self-promoting, unoriginal, and scientifically and politically misguided socialists for the simple fact of their atheism.

I greatly enjoy the opportunity to engage in reasoned argument about political, scientific and philosophical issues in paragraph form, as I have done on other threads. I find responding to implied and repeated insults a waste of time. Since I have chosen to respond to you so far, I will say that any problem I have is with myself for possibly being too generous. I hope that you can respond to me by addressing just one of the issues I have raised, I would welcome a debate on anything other than my sincerity or motives.

Benevolently,

Ted Keer, Sep 10th, 2006, Manhattan

Marne,

Yes, she was.

Lance,

I don't know if he will get any TV time in the US, but I would be surprised if he didn't. Dawkins plans a major book tour and promotion next year, and the US is one of his major markets.

Ted,

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. You have not made any case regarding his evolutionary arguments on this thread - apart for them being unoriginal. However, Dawkins never claimed that they were original - so what's your problem?

Deleted

Marcus,

I get the feeling you see Dawkins as a hero of yours, I have no problem with that. My perspective on biology is from an evolutionary and ecological standpoint. (Above the organism level.) And I would guess you are more interested in biochemistry and medical issues. (Below the organism level.) I have found certain of his evolutionary arguments objectionable, as I made clear at some length. You did not address my criticisms, so may I assume you accept them?

I really don't care that Dawkins is or is not an atheist. Madalyn Murray O’Hair was a great advocate of atheism. Marxists and Buddhists are atheists, I don't hold any of them in particular regard. And I happen to think that Rand might have a good conversation with that notorious Catholic, Isabel Paterson, had they ever met. I love Rand because I love happiness, not because I hate God.

Since Dawkins also couches his invalid political views in the language of science and reason, I don't really know what credit he deserves. I guess I can see him as an ad hoc ally against luddites, in the same way that I see Bush as an ad hoc ally against Jihadis.

I did not accept Rand because she justified my atheism, I accepted atheism once I had read Rand and saw the reason of her arguments. It was as liberating to realize that one need not assume a Prime Mover at 16 as it was to have my mother confirm Santa Claus's non-existence when I was six. But making a big deal over it is about as meaningful to me as someone claiming to be an advocate of reason because he denies the existence of Nessie or Thor. And I do not accept the validity of Dawkins' famous innovative biological arguments. (See below.) So in the way that I do respect Rand as a philosopher, I do not have any especial esteem for Dawkins as a biologist. I enjoy his engaging and provocative prose. I have the same esteem for him that I do for that notorious Catholic, G. K. Chesterton; he makes me think.

I am not looking for some sort of sparring match here. I have not characterized anything you have said as weird. Should you wish to discuss any of my scientific or theoretical comments below, I would be glad to do so. Simply asserting that my opinions (plural) are weird without saying which ones and refuting or criticizing them is little more than the rhetorical equivalent of book burning.

Ted Keer, Sep 10, 2006, NYC

BTW, The implied disdain for America is smug and unjustified. You may find crack addicts and murderers in Washington, but if you want to be called an infidel, ride the London underground.

Marcus, will Dawkins get any TV time here in the US when his book comes out? It'd have to be a popular discussion for people to go get his books to burn them. It'd be a good thing if his book led to enough discussion to actually have a book burnin'.

I find America to be getting less religious. I understand that there is a political wing of the Republican Party that is way religious (including W) but overall I believe it's as Nietzsche says, "God is Dead" in the sense of being the base of human values in Western culture. Secularism is an idea whose time is coming fast and the next problem is for a culture to find a purpose without God in it. It's not going so well at present.

Ted,

I find your opinions quite weird for someone who claims to have read all of Dawkin's popular works. For example, you write:

"I do not find his atheism alone any proof of virtue either. Many people assume this attitude simply as a provocation, out of resentment for authority in general, or in the context of a flawed ideology such as Marxism."

Anybody familiar with Dawkin's views should realize that his rejection of religion comes from a sincere advocacy of science and reason, an unapologetic rejection of all forms of mysticism and a refreshing intellectual honesty. If Rand and Dawkins ever discussed the topic of religion vs. science together, I think they would have been in complete agreement.

What will be interesting will be to see what happens when Dawkin's new book, "the God Delusion" is published this November. Dawkins is a very well-known figure in the US and the rest of the world, and the question is whether you will have book-burnings in the street by fundamentalist groups all the way from Washington to Istanbul.

We shall see. The mystics are always unpredictable in their reactions.

I will accept your assertion, Marcus, that Dawkins is not an avowed political Marxist. I have only read his popular books, and have no other evidence save my memory of his works and of third person statements upon which to draw. I do not think his reductionist materialist socialism is in question however. (I am a holist* monist capitalist myself.) The only work of his which I have on hand, other than Ancestor's Tale, is Devil's Chaplin. To tell the truth, I was so annoyed by his asides from reading it, I don't know whether I'll bother to re-read it just to criticize him. Someone who refers to "an illusion of harmony and real efficiency will emerge in an economy dominated by self-interest" is not a capitalist in any sense.

I do not find his atheism alone any proof of virtue either. Many people assume this attitude simply as a provocation, out of resentment for authority in general, or in the context of a flawed ideology such as Marxism. There are an infinite number of things of whose existence one can deny. Let me know what a person argues positively instead, and I don't need to hear politics from a scientist.

Nor does his Darwinolatry impress me, there are many fans of Darwin who are highly critical (see below for Ernst Mayr) of Dawkins. Darwin was brilliant, I fully credit him for his formulation of natural & sexual selection. Darwin is unarguably the most influential biologist since Aristotle, and I do not contest in any way the truth of his discoveries, or that biology can be understood outside the context of his discoveries.

Dawkins' "discovery" of memes is brilliant. He repackages an idea that has been around since the Greeks namely the idea of "idea" and, with one deft neologism, finds something else by which to market himself. What a wonderful meme to have discovered. There is no new information here. Analyzing ideas as contagion is a way of denying that people have the ability (or responsibility) to examine their own beliefs, Dawkins himself excepted. Unless his meme of the meme is just a meme.

I understand why people like Dawkins and his writing. I have read every popular work of his since Selfish Gene, and have found each rewarding and thought-provoking. I liked S. J. Gould as well. But I reassert that Dawkins' work is of dubious value when it is original. He is great at provoking thought - that must be looked at with a sufficiently critical eye. And if one wants authoritative biology, philosophy or politics, there are better places to look.

*By holist, I mean that I accept Aristotle' hylomorphism, the stance that substance must be understood as a unity of material and form, and I hold that emergent properties arise from form which cannot be explained by scientific reductionism.

Ted Keer 09/09/2006 NYC

PS Can you quote a page for "the agreeable falsehood that Darwin turned down an offer from Marx to dedicate Das Kapital to him" as you quote? I vaguely recall this being a compliment to Darwin for his not making politcal announcements, not as a criticism of Marx per se.

One thing Dawkins constantly battles with is a tonne of misconceptions about what his political opinions are. I think he definitely hints at being a socialist. He is never that explicit, because he thinks that biologists that enter into giving their ideological positions in that manner - usually end up being embarrassed and out of their depth. However, he does have a good laugh in the updated introduction of "the Selfish Gene" about the fact that there are so many socialists (just do a search on the web) that accuse him of being responsible for the advent of market economics in the eighties and both Thatcher and Reagan getting into power!

The closest I ever saw him get to that ideological position was an essay he wrote in 2000, included in his book "The Devil's Chaplain". He writes: "As Adam Smith understood long ago, an illusion of harmony and real efficiency will emerge in an economy dominated by self-interest at a lower level."

Ted, you are completely wrong. Dawkins is definitely not a Marxist. One ideological position that he does not hide in his writing is that he detests Karl Marx. For example, he once commented in an essay about, "the agreeable falsehood that Darwin turned down an offer from Marx to dedicate Das Kapital to him". (Darwin was not even familiar with Marx's writing).

Elsewhere he writes, if we were visited by an intelligent alien race that, "To name two thinkers who have more than once been promoted as Darwin's equals, I doubt whether our visitors will have much interest in talking about Marx or Freud, other than perhaps as anthropological curiosities...One does not have to disparage the local achievements of Freud and Marx on this planet to agree that their findings have no universality."

Kevin, Dawkins documentary was not made by the BBC. It was made by a privately run not-for-profit station in the UK called "Channel 4". I think the confusion may come from the fact that "BBC America" sometimes screens their shows in the US.

While Dawkins is arguably not a capitalist, I am an admitted fan of his work and would like to remind objectivists of the work he has done outside of academia in the name of reason/rationalism. Under a hypothetical libertarian state, I would want Dawkins as my socialist neighbor as opposed to a fundamentalist Muslim. At least Dawkins would appreciate your point-of-view. A BBC documentary he did on religion(entitled "The Root of All Evil?) reaffirmed my atheism to near-militant status ;P I think if Dawkins is truly a socialist, it just shows he is underdeveloped politically in contrast to his biological expertise.

Katherine, love your attitude. You'll go a long way with that. 5 books? Are you nuts?!

Ted, I also like seeing those towers there. I dunno what it is but this year the memories of 9-11 are getting to me more than in previous years. What a terrible day. I didn't have the TV on and my mom left a broken, heart-wrenching message on my machine. "Lance, it's just terrible...awful...the news...CLICK". I believe she called after the first tower was down.

I'll always be furious about it. Never forget.

I actually decided to pick up this text when I saw it mentioned in two different economics textbooks. I have a voracious appetite for learning and consider myself, as a student, to be in the business of knowing. Plus, the mere fact that "selfish" was in the title piqued my interest.

I do wish I had a firmer footing in both biology and Rand's epistomological method. Fortunately, I never have fewer than five books queued up for consumption, so please recommend those works that have been most beneficial to you.

Finally, your avatar is painfully beautiful. I have a picture of pre-9/11 Manhattan hanging near my desk, and it acts as a constant reminder of what I am fighting for and of the grave injustices that have been committed against those who value life and progress. Thank you for refusing to forget 9/11.

Katherine,

Are you reading for a class, or personal interest? (Was going to type self-interest!)

I find that Objectivism (properly, Rand's epistemological method) alows one to disect scientific theories and speculation, while a knowledge of the sciences (most especially biology) gives one a way to examine Rand's thoughts from a scientific standpoint.

Ted

I just picked up The Selfish Gene at the beginning of the semester, and I'm about 1/3 of the way through it.

It was quite plain to me from the very introduction that Dawkins is a socialist. However, I must give him credit for being an outspoken atheist.

It's been a long time since I've read or re-read The Selfish Gene, but Dawkins' central thesis was fatally flawed. While certain genes may have good or bad implications for any individual organism's survival, the genes themselves cannot be isolated from the organism for independent selection as genes. The organism is an emergent product of its genes, its environment, and the feedback of its own actions. (Keep that in mind the next time you hear the nature/nurture dichotomy brought up. The fools are omitting a person's own choices from consideration as a causal factor in his development.) Dawkins himself retreated on his reductionist selectionism later in his career. His books are very thought-provoking, but his early speculations should be taken with a grain of salt. His Ancestor's Tale is marred by his snide sniping political asides that have no place in a scientific work meant for posterity. His use of Condi Rice & Colin Powell as biological exhibits is perverse. He asks us which of the four might an alien see as of a different species: Bush, Rice, Cheney or Powell? Based on the photo, the obvious answer is Rice, whose body shape is noticeably female. But no, he assumes that we will segregate out Rice and Powell as "Black." We are asked to understand subtle theoretical arguments, but not to notice or mind his implication that we are racists, or that the Bush administration can be likened to a zoo exhibit.

Ernst Mayr, who just passed away at over 100 years, and whose last book was published in 2004, was a much clearer and influential thinker. Anyone interested in theoretical biology should read his collected essays. Mayr's What is Evolution? is the best popular book on biology I know, highly recommended.

Ted Keer, Sep 8, 2006, NYC

Oh, and Dawkins also took Lala Ward away from Tom Baker. That alone proves he's an evil alien agent.

If the letter writer truly believes that Richard Dawkins through a few words in a book, was responsible for "three decades of unbridled market economics", then surely this is proof that his theory of memes is extremely powerful and he is one of the master creators of memes.
Of course he is secondary to the greats like Mohammed, Jesus.......

As much as I liked THE SELFISH GENE, I got the impression from the back of the book cover blurb alone that there was something less than "Objectivist" about Dawkin's view of selfishness. (He's not directly responsible for the blurbs, but I found the book itself to fit the impression.)

I don't know if he would admit it, but Dawkins and Stephen J Gould (to my distress) are/were both Marxists. Dawkins occasionally lets his bias slip. Gould, at least, would admit it. Both writers are good reads, although they are criticized as showboating popularizers by their non-best-selling peers. What an irony that Dawkins should be seen as promoting anything like capitalism. Good for us. I retract that, wouldn't want any actual thinking people to mistake him for a capitalist.

Just remember that they or their elected agents mean to come after you with guns.