Display:
I hesitate to ask this, but it's worth doing: you do know what the whole 'selfish gene' thing was actually about, don't you? It was a hypothesis to explain altruistic behaviour. OK, you know that already ... but many intelligent people on the Left don't, and that's why they hate Dawkins so much ... they hear the phrase 'selfish gene' and they just go berserk because they think its some justification for devil-take-the-hindmost Social Darwinism. Again, they haven't actually read what the guy says ... or haven't understood it.

Now, he is an ethologist and the 'problem' (for want of a better term) of altruism in animals needs an explanation. You seem to be saying he isn't allowed to propose one in terms of natural selection because he isn't a molecular biologist or some sort of 'network' specialist. Respectfully, I think you are wrong about that. It comes down to the degree of specialization and atomization of knowledge that now exists. Mostly I think people here decry that, from what I have seen of the relevant threads ... but not when it's time to jump on Dawkins, apparently. Then everyone should strictly keep their mouths shut on whatever they aren't professional specialists in.

Sorry for any phrasing infelicities, I'm doing this on the run.

by wing26 on Thu Jan 10th, 2008 at 07:06:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, sure I know.. but it is as if I would invent a new theory to explain the big bang or to explain that probably the big bang was not for real.. just because.. well I am physicist... so you may think I could.. well not.. my field of expertise is complex systems, chaos, networks, dynamcial sistem, pattern formation... I hate the microscopic stuff and the all-theories but I love astronomy so I read once in a while... but if I would write a book about it with my opinion about the field in a book.. well the minimum the people up here in astronomy will tell me is : "you are a real jack ass".. well more like "your are making yourself like a jack ass".

I would even hesitiate to write a book about the things I do know... much less the things I do not know a jot about.

He can certainly make the proposal in the community.. and he surely did.. and since the people were laughing all around he used his position to write a book... and people are reasonable either pissed at him or just do not consider him worhthwhile any more.

ANd I always mean as a scientists outside his field. As a person in the news, show man or so on I have complete respect bacuse I know is his right (though I must say we I do not agree with anything.. )

SO in other words, as people in the news with a view about religiona dn science.. look no problem.. I will always there to argue.. for example with Bill Maher... he is a show man he holds similar positions I would always disagree with him, I would say that his trial will backfire but   I would always respect his point of view.

The day Bill Maher pretends to write a scientific book which is nothing more than a personal creatonism... well I would react as I react with the creationists... they just make up things from their butt.

And his proposal about altruistic behavior in ethology has been cosntantly repeteadly and insistenly sent to where it belongs.. the garbage.

A pleasure.

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jan 10th, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series