Richard Dawkins

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just interested to know what those in our scientific community thought of Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins). He is the author of The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192860925/qid=1133501840/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-5875847-4536662) and is a socio-biologist and often considered as a "reductionist."

He is in the same scientific camp as Steven Pinker and is heavily criticised by Richard Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Lewontin) who is sometimes considered a Marxist.

Anyone have any thoughts on Richard Dawkins and more importantly the wider topic of sociobiology?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just thought I'd add this article (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml). In this article Dawkins reviews a book which criticises sociobiology from what would seem a Marxist viewpoint.

[encephalon]

On Dawkins' behalf, it should be said that he's vehemently denied the capitalist libertarian interpretation of his books as saying being selfish is natural.. he's writing about microscopic events that do not manifest macroscopically in the same nature. The capitalist hijacking of his writing can be easily refuted by pointing out things like ants and bees exist--the complete antithesis of such an "individualist" transferrence from the microscopic to the macroscopic world.

I think Dawkins simply wants politics and science to remain separated; and while I think that's a bit idealistic a desire, especially for a scientist, I can understand why he would wish for such a separation. Science is about objectivity, something politics tends to ignore when the facts are inconvenient.

[Amusing Scrotum]

On Dawkins' behalf, it should be said that he's vehemently denied the capitalist libertarian interpretation of his books as saying being selfish is natural..

Could you link a piece or a quote where he does this. It would be very useful.


I think Dawkins simply wants politics and science to remain separated; and while I think that's a bit idealistic a desire, especially for a scientist, I can understand why he would wish for such a separation. Science is about objectivity, something politics tends to ignore when the facts are inconvenient.

I know Lewontin and Gould, both considered "Socialists." Are strong critics of sociobiology.

However his position of wanting to keep politics and science separate, seems naive at best.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 1 2005, 11:48 PM
Just thought I'd add this article (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml). In this article Dawkins reviews a book which criticises sociobiology from what would seem a Marxist viewpoint.
Well, a CP-oriented standpoint, which is not the same thing. From the quotes in that review, it was probably an easy target, and I regret to say Dawkins scored some real points.

Sociobiology's a reactionary view, IMO, and its proponents have put forward some crap science in defense of prevailing social prejudices. It's now more commonly called "evolutionary psychology". If you're interested in the topic, there's been some good debates on it in Skeptic magazine recently.

Dawkin's also know for the "meme" theory, which is basically a bit of philosophical speculation outside his area of expertise. Not very good speculation either: it's possible to make analogies between biological evolution and the evolution of cultural practices, but it's unlikely the two operate in the same way. For one thing, Lamarckism may really work when it comes to culture...people consciously modify their practices.

Dawkins certainly cannot be described as a "pseudoscientific hack" - he's respected as a biologist, including by his opponents within the field. He's also done some good work debunking creationism, for example in his book "The Blind Watchmaker."

As a Redstar disciple, you should also like his attacks on religion.


Could you link a piece or a quote where he does this

You did. The review of the book by Lewontin et al.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well, a CP-oriented standpoint, which is not the same thing. From the quotes in that review, it was probably an easy target, and I regret to say Dawkins scored some real points.

Dawkin's did seem to do a pretty good job degrading Lewontin. Though I'm not "clued up" on anything to do with evolutionary science and I haven't been able to find Lewontin's response.


Sociobiology's a reactionary view, IMO, and its proponents have put forward some crap science in defense of prevailing social prejudices. It's now more commonly called "evolutionary psychology". If you're interested in the topic, there's been some good debates on it in Skeptic magazine recently.

I'll have a look at "Skeptic magazine."

From what I have been reading, Sociobiology, does seem a "justification" science.


As a Redstar disciple, you should also like his attacks on religion.

That's a bit harsh, but I from what I've read, Dawkin's refuses to debate with "Creationists" in public.

"Not exactly "confronting" the forces of reaction wherever they appear." - Redstar (May, 2004). :lol:


You did. The review of the book by Lewontin et al.

I was hoping for something more direct, you know "I in know way think my work shows Capitalism is great etc."

The reason I ask, is that a Libertarian brought him up here (http://p2.forumforfree.com/3-vt714-britishgovernme.html?start=30) and I was hoping for something to "shut him up."

[encephalon]

I was hoping for something more direct, you know "I in know way think my work shows Capitalism is great etc."

Although I think he generally tries to stay outside of politics, he's said a few things regarding social and economic systems.. for instance:

(from The Descent of Man, episode 4)



...
One of the most influential theories about how altruistic behaviour evolved is the theory of reciprocal altruism: you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. And here, according to Richard Dawkins, vampire bats can be an inspiration to us all.

Richard Dawkins: Well, vampire bats have a kind of blood donor scheme; vampire bats, as you know, eat blood, and it happens to be a case of reciprocal altruism that’s been well worked out. These bats roost by day and then at night they go out and look for an animal to suck blood from, and then they come back and roost for the next day. Well if a bat is lucky, and manages to find an animal to suck blood from, it usually engorges itself and becomes very, very full, has much more blood than it actually needs. But that is quite a lot of luck that goes into that, and there are other nights when a bat will come home hungry, having not found any blood. And that can be fatal. These little animals need constant topping up in order not to die. So the situation is tailor-made for reciprocal altruism. When these bats come back into their cave after their night’s work, so to speak, some of them will be almost overflowing with blood, and others will be near death from starvation, and so there’s a lot to be gained from the ones who’ve got a lot of blood giving some to the ones who haven’t got much, and they do it by regurgitating it, by sicking it up, and the others eat it. And they can expect to get paid back by those very same individuals on another night, when the luck has been reversed. And that actually happens, that’s been demonstrated and it’s a very good example of reciprocal altruism in nature.

The very survival of the bats depends upon the sharing of their wealth.

Another, from the foreward to a book called "pyramids of life" (he titles the forward "the ecology of genes"):



Richard Dawkins: 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. (my bold


Another, from newshour with jim lehrer (dec 25, 2000) titled "understanding greed":



PAUL SOLMAN: In other words, you can never have enough. Thus you can never be happy. That insight alone would explain why people are ambivalent about self-interested consumer culture. But sociobiologists take it a step further. They point to studies of current hunter-gatherer societies like Southern Africa's Kung bushmen.

LEDA COSMIDES, Evolutionary Psychologist: What is it that makes a hunter-gatherer feel wealthy?

PAUL SOLMAN: Leda Cosmides.

LEDA COSMIDES: Some people have suggested that one of the...that since hunter gatherers don't have wealth in the same sense, that one of the cues that our minds use to feel wealthy and secure and protected and sated and like everything is okay are things like, well, how many kin do I have around me?

PAUL SOLMAN: By that measure lonely Scrooge totting up his wealth, is poorer than the apparent destitute Cratchet family.

PAUL SOLMAN: But, according to sociobiologists, even the warm and fuzzy feelings of love and kinship are not as selfless as they seem.

RICHARD DAWKINS: The self-interest of genes can be accomplished by programming non-selfish behavior at higher levels at levels of, say, the organism.

PAUL SOLMAN: Cooperation?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes.

(see the whole video here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec00/greed_12-25.html#))


In any case, disregarding Dawkins, you could ask him what nature's equivalent to corporate lawyers, tax accountants, management consultants, etc.. and then as products of natural selection, ask when they will evolve into something more fruitful to humanity. The whole free market = nature argument is nothing but conviction, and has no sound basis. It's also the social darwinist theory that led to historical conditions that gave rise to Nazi atrocities.

Dawkins argues that evolution is propagated by the competition of Genes, not individual organisms. In this sense, if a social system maximizes the propagation of genes through socially cooperative means, the gene itself doesn't care one bit. Genes don't have ideologies, and give a fuck less about politics. A Gene's goal is to survive, nothing more.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Cheers encephalon. :)

I just occurred to me, that maybe we should have a thread stickied where the "libertarian capitalist" interpretations of science and certain scientists are refuted.

You know if someone brings up scientist X in debate and says, "well scientist X proves that Capitalism is the only social order available." Then we can say, "hang on, scientist X actually said A,B and C, which in no way supports any of you claims."

What do you think?

[encephalon]

I think that's a good idea.. not sure how much content would be on it, though

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:28 PM
I think that's a good idea.. not sure how much content would be on it, though

We could just add to it whenever someone brought up a scientist or type of science. After all, a sticky can easily be removed if it's "dead" and you never know, we might end up building quite a stockpile of evidence against the Capitalist hijacking of science.

Is Noxion reading this thread, what do you think "almighty" mod? :lol:

[Bannockburn]

Actually Dawkins explicitly states that, in the selfish gene, he is not advocating an evolutionary morality, or people are biologically determined to be selfish. He stresses in the selfish gene that he is not advocating morality. In fact, what people fail to read in the selfish gene is that genes have to be altruistic as much as selfish in order to survive

So really the "capitalist" take on Dawkins is completely illusionary, and he is being used as a "source of authority", even though the authority himself does nto advocate the particular take.

[redstar2000]

Well, I think that nearly all of the "sociobiologists" and "evolutionary psychologists" make a point -- in a "public relations" sort of way -- of saying something along the lines of...

I'm just a working scientist investigating nature as it really is and none of my results are intended by me to be extrapolated into social policy.

It's like any other disclaimer..."warning, contents may be hot", blah, blah, blah.

But these people are not "stupid" or "naive" and I can't imagine that they are "unaware" of the political and economic implications of what they are saying...

Existing elites really are genetically superior and actually deserve their preeminence

And the logical corollary...

It is to our own genetic advantage to submit to these elites because any change will inevitably bring genetically inferior people to power.

So when such "scientists" receive generous research grants and wide-spread favorable publicity in the bourgeois media, we should understand why that's happening.

Ruling classes have always sought "cosmological justification" for their position. Now that religion is fading, they find it difficult (though not yet completely impossible) to claim that they were "appointed by God".

In the late 19th century, they began to wonder if science might be useful for this purpose...and there've been a small number of "scientists" ever since happily willing to cooperate.

Unfortunately, the "science" they've produced thus far has been poor...and, on occasion, entirely fraudulent. My impression is that most reputable geneticists are not even interested, at this point, in the hypothesis of "genetic determinism" of human behavior. They are still probing the actual function(s) of a particular gene...what protein does this gene code for and what does that protein actually do inside of a cell after it's manufactured? What conditions turn this gene "on" and "off"? The complexity of such questions is truly "awesome"...and attempts to relate them to human behavior are, at this point, entirely speculative.

I have not read the book that Dawkin's criticized...but it surely sounds like a very "lame" attempt to refute "sociobiology". I did read two books that attacked "sociobiology" very forcefully...

Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature by Philip Kitcher.

The Mismeasure of Man by Steven J. Gould.

Kitcher is rather more difficult reading than Gould...but that makes his work all the more serious.

I rather doubt that Dawkins would want to "take on" Kitcher. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by redstar2000
But these people are not "stupid" or "naive" and I can't imagine that they are "unaware" of the political and economic implications of what they are saying...

Existing elites really are genetically superior and actually deserve their preeminence

And the logical corollary...

It is to our own genetic advantage to submit to these elites because any change will inevitably bring genetically inferior people to power.

So when such "scientists" receive generous research grants and wide-spread favorable publicity in the bourgeois media, we should understand why that's happening.

Your criticism is more than likely "on the mark," though when debating with people hostile to Marxism, Anarchism etc. such criticism can seem to them, absurd. They will more than likely completely disregard it as a wild "conspiracy theory."

Therefore I think it is better to present conflicting bourgeois science. "We" obviously have no way of knowing who is really right, but "we" can muddy the waters somewhat.


So when such "scientists" receive generous research grants and wide-spread favorable publicity in the bourgeois media, we should understand why that's happening.

"We" should understand it. However if we chose to use this line of debate all the time, we would run into a lot of trouble.

We'd have to prove the links before anyone would take our arguments seriously. This is not always easy. For instance you have a piece on your site about a big Christian foundation giving scientists monetary awards. This disproves the individual scientists and casts doubt on their motives and their scientific conclusions.

However it can't disprove unrelated scientists, to do this I think it is better just to prevent conflicting science.


In the late 19th century, they began to wonder if science might be useful for this purpose...and there've been a small number of "scientists" ever since happily willing to cooperate.

I'd say it has been a very small group. A few race scientists and a few others. Most scientists seem to keep away from politics, at least at face value.

Of course if someone had the time and money they could no doubt "look into" who is funding a certain University or scientist and formulate a conclusion as to what this funding is hoping to achieve. However there will very rarely be a "smoking gun" which completely discredits the science.


I have not read the book that Dawkin's criticized...but it surely sounds like a very "lame" attempt to refute "sociobiology".

Dawkins did seem to completely destroy it in a short review. Though I suppose we'd have to read the book to see how accurate Dawkins review was.

However I very much doubt you'd like the book, Lewontin seems to criticise Dawkins for not thinking "dialectally." A "dialectal biologist." :o :lol:


Kitcher is rather more difficult reading than Gould...but that makes his work all the more serious.

I'll have to pass on those suggestions. My scientific understanding stopped around age 13, when skipping school and certain substances became a more attractive option than Physics, Chemistry or Biology. Therefore I'd probably get stuck on page one.

The perils of a misspent youth. :( :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Your criticism is more than likely "on the mark," though when debating with people hostile to Marxism, Anarchism etc. such criticism can seem to them, absurd. They will more than likely completely disregard it as a wild "conspiracy theory."

Well, you have me here. :lol:

You see, I rarely bother to "debate" with people who are "hostile to Marxism, Anarchism, etc.".

I think it much more valuable to spend our time discussing these matters with people who are already receptive to our ideas.

In my opinion, people "come to the left" as a consequence of their life experiences...that's what makes them "open" to revolutionary ideas.

Those who simply want to "intellectually defeat us" are, in most cases, incapable of even understanding what we are talking about. They are privileged -- or at least imagine that they are -- and think (possibly with justification :lol:) that communism/anarchism threatens their position (or potential position) on the "social pyramid". :o

The only possible benefit I can see from "debating" our adversaries is on those rare occasions when there is a broad public audience of "undecided" people.

As to "conspiracy theories", well, there have been conspiracies.

In the case we are discussing here, the links were open and obvious during the first half of the 20th century. Successful capitalists openly funded projects to "research" subjects like "racial inferiority/superiority". They were proud of this sort of thing.

It's probably a good deal more subtle now. The competition for research money is very intense...especially in the "social sciences".

And we are not privy to the discussions that take place before a research grant is approved or rejected. The official myth is that such grants are approved or rejected "on their objective merits" by "distinguished scientists" working "in that field".

I think it would be exceptionally naive to imagine that ideology plays "no role" in such deliberations...not to mention the "personal networks" that exist in science just as much as in any other highly bureaucratized environment.

When one scientific bureaucrat says to another about a younger scientist that "his views are sound"...that conveys a meaning far beyond the merits of a research proposal.

That's not a "conspiracy" in the sense that we normally use the word. It's closer, I think, to an "understood commonality of interest" that does not need elaboration.

Young scientists learn "what's expected of them" and probably spend little time "worrying about that".

Like all the rest of us, they want to "get a good job" and "build a career" with economic security against the vicissitudes of (capitalist) fortune.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[encephalon]

the main point, I think, is that capital-libertarians misinterpret Dawkins' work as stating that selfish competition is natural and the best policy, while Dawkins explicitly states on many occassions that it is not. Nor does he spend much of his time on sociobiology, from the books of his that I've read: most of it is based solely on the microscopic level conerning evolutionary biology. That, and explaining how evolution works without a god in language that is understandable to a lot of people.

[Morpheus]

The only possible benefit I can see from "debating" our adversaries is on those rare occasions when there is a broad public audience of "undecided" people.

Those kinds of debates played a role in my own radicalization. I was on the sidelines, reading the opposing side's arguements.

Sociobiology can easily be disproven with a little history. The whole "science" is essentially based on trying to show that contemporary human behavior is biologically written in stone, which is easily disproven by pointing to past societies with different behavior. It's just a projection of the present onto the past. Few professional historians take it seriously.