The Radionuclide Ions & Co. discussion
This topic is about
A Devil's Chaplain
Buddy Reads Archive
>
A Devils' Chaplain by Richard Dawkins
date
newest »
newest »
I have started (gently) and am already hooked. Hoping that others will join. I will post my thoughts on the first 3 or 4 essays later.
Halfway point in the first section. Dawkins has covered several subjects : "the selfish gene", scientific truth and how it is perceived / understood, the "discontinuous mind" and the human genome sequencing project and its implications.
It would be difficult to discuss each essay individually, but here are my impressions on some of the points raised.
First, Dawkins' discussion of evolution is both optimistic and pessimistic. Pessimistic in that evolution moves slowly in the direction of advantages of individuals or individual sub-populations (hence selfishness - individuals from whatever species who find a way to "get ahead" do so without thinking about ethics. A striking illustration was the "digger wasp", that paralyses its victim so it can, at leisure, feed on live flesh). The optimism comes from the fact that human brains have evolved such that we ask moral questions - one supposes that the digger wasp does not (or maybe it does?).
Which leads nicely into the discussion on the discontinuous mind, or how we are lead to think that humans are in some way special and not just a sub branch of the ape family (African apes, as Dawkins puts it). He demonstrates, to my mind conclusively, how we try to classify into "species pigeon holes" that do not necessarily exist, and do not understand the continuity of the evolutionary process - we are just a snapshot in time of a process that has been going on for years.
I disagreed (slightly) with Dawkins' appraisal of the implications of the various genome projects, but, to be fair on him, his book was written in 2003 (based on older work) and much has been learned since. He advocates strongly the use of genetically modified organisms saying that the arguments against them are knee jerk and based on misunderstandings. To a large extent this is true, but science is still in the process of understanding how "genetics works". It is one thing to understand the genetic code, but totally another to understand how this leads to life, with all its differences between individuals, change of lifestyle with age (development) etc. So the picture of "add an anti freeze gene to tomatoes and you get a tomato unaffected by frost" is, I think, simplistic, as we don't yet fully understand the mechanism by which the organism activates the gene product of this gene and "turns it on". In the early 2000's, scientists were surprised by the predominance of non-coding DNA in the genome (junk DNA it was called by some, at the time). But nowadays we begin to scratch the surface of what this DNA is used for. So we just don't completely understand the full effect of any genes we introduce into a modified organism. This, as Dawkins (in my view) correctly points out, is absolutely no reason for not experimenting, under scientifically controlled conditions, with modified organisms.
This is a very thought provoking book.....
It would be difficult to discuss each essay individually, but here are my impressions on some of the points raised.
First, Dawkins' discussion of evolution is both optimistic and pessimistic. Pessimistic in that evolution moves slowly in the direction of advantages of individuals or individual sub-populations (hence selfishness - individuals from whatever species who find a way to "get ahead" do so without thinking about ethics. A striking illustration was the "digger wasp", that paralyses its victim so it can, at leisure, feed on live flesh). The optimism comes from the fact that human brains have evolved such that we ask moral questions - one supposes that the digger wasp does not (or maybe it does?).
Which leads nicely into the discussion on the discontinuous mind, or how we are lead to think that humans are in some way special and not just a sub branch of the ape family (African apes, as Dawkins puts it). He demonstrates, to my mind conclusively, how we try to classify into "species pigeon holes" that do not necessarily exist, and do not understand the continuity of the evolutionary process - we are just a snapshot in time of a process that has been going on for years.
I disagreed (slightly) with Dawkins' appraisal of the implications of the various genome projects, but, to be fair on him, his book was written in 2003 (based on older work) and much has been learned since. He advocates strongly the use of genetically modified organisms saying that the arguments against them are knee jerk and based on misunderstandings. To a large extent this is true, but science is still in the process of understanding how "genetics works". It is one thing to understand the genetic code, but totally another to understand how this leads to life, with all its differences between individuals, change of lifestyle with age (development) etc. So the picture of "add an anti freeze gene to tomatoes and you get a tomato unaffected by frost" is, I think, simplistic, as we don't yet fully understand the mechanism by which the organism activates the gene product of this gene and "turns it on". In the early 2000's, scientists were surprised by the predominance of non-coding DNA in the genome (junk DNA it was called by some, at the time). But nowadays we begin to scratch the surface of what this DNA is used for. So we just don't completely understand the full effect of any genes we introduce into a modified organism. This, as Dawkins (in my view) correctly points out, is absolutely no reason for not experimenting, under scientifically controlled conditions, with modified organisms.
This is a very thought provoking book.....
No rush Holly - the writing is pretty dense and if you would like to go more slowly or have less time to read, that's fine by me!
I agree entirely with your last comment - this particular essay was really quite striking.
I agree entirely with your last comment - this particular essay was really quite striking.
I am making slower progress with the book that I expected, as I am enjoying thinking as I go. One subject where I am going to take issue with Dawkins is the chapter on "trial by jury". Although he is absolutely right about scientific technique (splitting a set of observations into 2 parts and looking at the correlation between the two halves), I am not at all sure about his reasoning in applying this to juries. He says that people tend to "follow" others in their opinions, and one or two people with forceful opinions will "influence" the others on a jury. But with my experience of human beings, it is just as likely to go the other way (such and such a person is banging on about something so I am going to disagree with them just for the fun of it). Obviously neither are ideal for getting an "ideal decision", but are courts about getting ideal decisions or justifying decisions in front of "your average person".
EIther way, 12 good people and true has worked pretty well and I don't think that there are so many miscarriages of justice that can be blamed, with hindsight, on the juries.
One thing that I think would improve the impartiality of juries (maybe this is done?) is to have private voting (guilty or not guilty) by a really anonymous method.
EIther way, 12 good people and true has worked pretty well and I don't think that there are so many miscarriages of justice that can be blamed, with hindsight, on the juries.
One thing that I think would improve the impartiality of juries (maybe this is done?) is to have private voting (guilty or not guilty) by a really anonymous method.
Mod
I've just been reading about Claude Shannon, and the amazing box with the switch on the outside. If you press the switch, the box opens, and arm comes out, reactivates the switch and closes the box again.... Love the sense of humor! It is perhaps saying "leave me in peace, I'm reading" .....
You can find a very short video of the box here .....
http://www.kugelbahn.ch/sesam_e.htm
The box is also described on the web :
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archive...
You can find a very short video of the box here .....
http://www.kugelbahn.ch/sesam_e.htm
The box is also described on the web :
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archive...
@Marian : I had also read about this due to one of your earlier posts (where you mentioned corrupt politicians, which, I agree with Holly, is a problem everywhere when people "get used to having power"). Not knowing very much about your country, I didn't feel it appropriate to raise the subject. Nor do I know to what extent posts on this blog can be made available to external 3rd parties (apart from Amazon).
I am just reading the section about "memes", or "idees fixes" that pass from one generation / group of people to the next. Dawkins cites the ability to make an origami Chinese junk, but also the obsessions of newspapers, a certain way of dressing etc, which "propagate".
It reminds me of a famous "deception", where it was argued that if sheep learn to cross cattle grids ib one country (horizontal bars above a hole in the ground, where the bat spacing is such that they find it hard to pass), the ability is immediately learned in another.
Whereas this is a very interesting concept, I find memes more a "context" than a property, whereas to me genetic makeup is more a property. It is the "blueprint" vs "recipe" argument again. Memes, if they exist, are a context based recipe.
It reminds me of a famous "deception", where it was argued that if sheep learn to cross cattle grids ib one country (horizontal bars above a hole in the ground, where the bat spacing is such that they find it hard to pass), the ability is immediately learned in another.
Whereas this is a very interesting concept, I find memes more a "context" than a property, whereas to me genetic makeup is more a property. It is the "blueprint" vs "recipe" argument again. Memes, if they exist, are a context based recipe.
Hope this doesn't come up twice - I just posted and it "disappeared".
I also think that this section, explaining that we are close cousins to the apes and chimpanzees, and tend to be "superior" about our species, whereas the truth is that we are pretty similar to other animals (we being animals) and just adapted in a slightly different way.
I enjoyed the section on "religion" less, not because it was not interesting reading (it was), but because I am suspicious of zealotry in ALL its forms. The section was depressingly negative.
Much more refreshing are the affectionate reviews of books by Medawar (that I haven't read - I surely must) and Gould (that I have read but now want to re-read, so much so that I rooted "Ever since Darwin" out of the garage).
I also think that this section, explaining that we are close cousins to the apes and chimpanzees, and tend to be "superior" about our species, whereas the truth is that we are pretty similar to other animals (we being animals) and just adapted in a slightly different way.
I enjoyed the section on "religion" less, not because it was not interesting reading (it was), but because I am suspicious of zealotry in ALL its forms. The section was depressingly negative.
Much more refreshing are the affectionate reviews of books by Medawar (that I haven't read - I surely must) and Gould (that I have read but now want to re-read, so much so that I rooted "Ever since Darwin" out of the garage).
The current chapter I am reading (review of one of Gould's books) is just a fantastic piece of writing. Echoing the earlier "humans are not special" discussion, this essay talks about the incremental and adaptive nature of evolution. To a human, we might think that our brains (well, at least yours ...) are pretty nifty and show how "evolved" we are, but actually for an insect being "evolved" is probably how well its multiple eye can detect movement, so a human would be down at the bottom of the "evolved species". The idea of a hierarchic scale of "level of evolution" is a nonsense - it is level of adaptation to the niche in life that each organism occupies that is important. Great writing, and very clear.
Well, I have finished the book. I very much enjoyed some of the book review essays at the end, which make we want to read the books in question. The final chapter, letter to his daughter, reprises one of the essays but written in a more tender fashion.
Overall the book gave me lots of ideas, and took longer to read than I had expected as it is dense and requires thinking about and a desire to read a modern text book about evolution.
Overall the book gave me lots of ideas, and took longer to read than I had expected as it is dense and requires thinking about and a desire to read a modern text book about evolution.
A very good analysis Holly. I feel that Dawkins goes too far, and ignores the very great good that religion as done over the years, preferring to concentrate on the undoubted harm caused by zealots of one type or another. Some pretty awful things have also been done in the name of science - Mengele is an obvious example, but the tests of vaccines on mentally handicapped or insane patients could be named, as could the development of the atomic bomb. Whereas Dawkins chooses not to believe in what he cannot test / attribute clear evidence to, if people were not guided by beliefs much of the scientific discoveries that Dawkins obviously does like would not have existed.
Section 1 : Science and sensibility (6-7 May, pages 7 - 70)
Section 2 : Light will be thrown (8-9 May, pages 71 - 136)
Section 3 : The infected mind (10 May, pages 137-190)
Section 4 : They told me, Heraclitus (11 May, pages 191-209)
Section 5 : Even the ranks of Tuscany (12 May, pages 219 - 262)
Sections 6 and 7 : There is all Africa and her prodigies in us, A prayer for my daughter (13 May, pages 263-292)
If we don't stick to the plan, no matter - the important thing is to enjoy reading and to have a nice discussion.