A coherent argument against the 'selfish gene'?
I've received my copy of Dawkins's 'The God Delusion' and am well into it. rmj has blogged a critique of it, which I'll get to later, but in exploring his/her blog I found this imbedded in a critique of Daniel Dennett's 'Breaking the Spell'.
For some reason I had forgotten Richard Dawkins' connection to "selfish gene" theory, and I also thought that the "selfish gene" idea had found its Wittgenstein, and already been as discredited as thoroughly as Wittgenstein and Godel discredited logical positivism.
There is so much absurdity here that it's hard to know where to start. Richard Dawkins isn't merely 'connected' to the Selfish Gene concept: in 'The Selfish Gene', he laid out, for the first time, the entire gene-centred framework that has proven to have such explanatory power. Not to know that is akin to saying 'I had forgotten that Einstein was connected to General Relativity'. We'll leave rmj's premature declaration of victory over logical positivism for another time.
For a (wo)man who claims later in this post:
My critiques of science come from my study of it, not from my blank ignorancermj is remarkably ignorant. The notion that the selfish gene idea has been discredited is utterly foolish given the acknowledgement that the concept is receiving in this, the 30th anniversary of its publication. He goes on:
I worked out a fairly coherent argument against the "selfish gene" theory when I first heard of it, and seem to remember reading most of my points among criticisms of the idea, which is why, I think, I considered it a dead issue. It is, by and large, premised on a reductio ad absurdum...It is, of course, too much to hope that he/she might actually develop this argument for us, or even say something to show that he/she has the merest inkling of understanding of the selfish gene framework. We shall just have to take his/her word for it, as we would take the word of a fisherman for the size of the fish that escaped.
4 Comments:
I'll explain my arguments against the selfish gene theory when you can show me where Dawkins has the slightest understanding of theology, religion, or philosophy of religion. Indeed, I can offer better critiques of the arguments for the existence of God (again, as I said in my blog post), and I'm an ordained minister.
As I noted in my critique, he makes not the slightest reference to any philosopher of religion, gives the least possible credence to the thought of Aquinas, and generally displays elaborate ignorance of the topic of his book.
Were Dawkins' book a research paper turned into my English class, I'd shred it.
I purchased today a hardcopy of The GOD Delusion by Richard Dawkins:-) The bookstore had them on display as people walked in the door! I sat in my car thumbing through the pages of it when I read on page 215:
"Where does the Good Samaritan in us come from? Isn't goodness incompatible with the theory of the 'selfish gene? No. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory -- a distressing (and, with hindsight foreseeable misunderstanding.*
(Bottom of the page.)
"* I was mortified to read in the Guardian ('Animal Instincts, 27 May 2006) that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling, CEO of the infamous Enron Corporation, and that he derived inspiration of a social Darwinist character from it. The Guardian journalist Richard Conniff gives a good explanation of the misunderstanding: Http://money.guardian.co.uk/workweekly/story/0,,
1783900,00.html. I have tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in my new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, just brought out by Oxford University Press." (The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York, 2006, p. 215)
###
Let's look at the url Dawkins refers us to, Richard Conniff's article Animal Instincts:
"But in Skilling's strange Darwinian interpretation, selfishness was ultimately good even for the victims, because it weeded out the losers and forced the survivors to become strong.
"Well, here's where Skilling went wrong. Genes may be selfish. But people have evolved to be social. And these days, the Darwinian view includes an understanding that cooperation and even altruism are part of our genetic heritage.
"It's true: you can get ahead in the short-term by being a nasty piece of work, but groups have a knack of punishing nakedly selfish or anti-social behaviour. Most of us figure out pretty fast that we are more likely to survive and succeed over the long term when we learn to control our raging egos and play along with the group.
"Watching apes and chimps can also teach us some more specific lessons on how to resolve workplace conflict. Chimps, for examples, are masters of reconciliation, a behaviour first witnessed by primatologist Frans de Waal in the 1970s, after a raucous fight between two high-ranking chimps. After the dust settled, one male reached out to his rival, fingers extended, palm upward, an offering of peace. The two apes embraced. It was a reconciliation.
"Executives and managers still build careers on the motto, "Never apologise, never explain". But apologies are serious business. Managers wouldn't be spending 42% of their time mediating workplace disputes if their fellow workers understood the natural healing power of the words "I'm sorry". An apology can also miraculously transform a client's hostility into honey."
http://money.guardian.co.uk/workweekly/story/0,,1783900,00.html
###
A thank you to Dawkins, Conniff, and Alec for this gourmet getaway that has shed much needed light on 'selfish' genes.
I'm highlighting though out Dawkins new book excerpts that peek my interest.
M&M
rmj said: I'll explain my arguments against the selfish gene theory when you can show me where Dawkins has the slightest understanding of theology, religion, or philosophy of religion
Well, no surprise there. It was utterly predictable that rmj would find a reason not to present his obviously non-existent coherent argument agianst the 'selfish gene'.
Mind you, he hasn't learned his lesson. He immediately lays himself open to more embarassment by returning to full-on argument-by-boastful-assertion mode:
I can offer better critiques of the arguments for the existence of God [than Dawkins]
none of which I predict we'll ever see.
He utterly misses the elementary point that arguments for or against the existence of God stand or fall on their own merits, not on the quantity of references to theologians and 'philosophers' of the fable that one chooses to quote.
As for giving Aquinas short shrift, Dawkins gives Aquinas's 'proofs' just as much attention as they deserve (three pages).
Hi, am just a stroller
Would like to support the 'Selfish Gene Theory, (SGT) as a gut feeling.
And i would pose not just as a rhetoric but perhaps, also as a fact, that our guts are basically selfish. If it was not, than how do we survive? What is it that gives us the 'will' to survive, if not selfishness? And, further, would like to know, any or a single living being who survives without being 'selfish'?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Link<< Home