From the Bookshelf of Science and Inquiry…

The Selfish Gene

Richard Dawkins

Start date: June 1, 2014

Finish date: June 30, 2014

Discussion: Book Club 2014

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 24 topics — 696 comments total

Book Club 2014

March 2014 - Epigenetics Revolution
By Betsy , co-mod · 13 posts · 147 views

last updated Nov 06, 2019 03:45AM

September 2014 - Sixth Extinction
By Betsy , co-mod · 62 posts · 168 views

last updated Jan 06, 2016 01:48AM

showing 10 of 13 topics view all »

What Members Thought

Apr 07, 2013 Mike W rated it it was ok

Richard Dawkins has a talent for explaining scientific ideas clearly for the layman. So it is lamentable that he uses that talent in the service of a kind of rabid dogmatism that is antithetical to the true scientific spirit.

Dawkins is an enthusiastic advocate of Darwinian evolution and natural selection, to the point where even the famed evolutionary biologist SJ Gould accused Dawkins of "Darwinian fundamentalism." Darwin's theory (with some modifications concerning punctuated equilibria) is, n Richard Dawkins has a talent for explaining scientific ideas clearly for the layman. So it is lamentable that he uses that talent in the service of a kind of rabid dogmatism that is antithetical to the true scientific spirit.

Dawkins is an enthusiastic advocate of Darwinian evolution and natural selection, to the point where even the famed evolutionary biologist SJ Gould accused Dawkins of "Darwinian fundamentalism." Darwin's theory (with some modifications concerning punctuated equilibria) is, no doubt, the best one that has been offered thus far, and there is substantial corroborating evidence for it in the fossil record. But the history of science is littered with the corpses of theories that once seemed indubitable--like Ptolemy's astronomy, or Newton's physics. They also had substantial empirical support.

Moreover, hypothesis testing in science only ever allows us to refute theories that do not fit the facts, not to accept theories that do. It is a cardinal sin for an empirical scientist to consider any claim in natural science proven absolutely. Absolute certainty is possible only in a priori disciplines like mathematics and logic, not in a posteriori fields like evolutionary biology or zoology. And these disciplines are inherently more uncertain even that other empirical sciences, since they rely chiefly on observational rather than experimental confirmation. And yet it is difficult or even impossible to infer causality from merely observational evidence. This would be a better book if Dawkins were mosre aware of the inherent uncertainty involved here.

Dawkins thesis is that natural selection is the sole mechanism through which life has developed in all its variety, that natural selection operates exclusively at the level of "selfish" genes rather than at the individual or group level, and that living organisms are but "survival machines" for the transmission of genes. Gould criticized some of this here.

My own training is in statistics, not biology, so I don't have a strong opinion about this thesis. But it seems to me that human beings don't fit this theory. We do not act like "survival machines". Some people become religious mystics and choose to remain celibate, others spend their lives devoted to art or literature, and still others, in a fit of existential despair, commit suicide. Explaining all of this in terms of a theory of "survival machines" seems to me far-fetched. But if one species doesn't fit your theory, you don't get to dismiss that species as "aberrant." It's more likely that your theory is aberrant--and wrong.

Regardless, this book is worth reading. I intend to read Dawkins' more recent book "The God Delusion" some time, but not very eagerly. Dawkins expresses himself with an arrogance and a sneering derision for everyone who disagrees with him that I find off-putting. ...more

Like · see review

Jun 06, 2011 Gregor rated it liked it

Shelves: evolution

Thought it was about genetic determinism all the way but The music of live from Denis Noble proved that I was wrong all the way and so was Richard Dawkins.

Like · see review