Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[AndrewC]

It should be noted too that the reason that Gould is not a participant in the exchange is because he was already dead for two years.

That's a pretty good Ad Hominem.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's a pretty good Ad Hominem."

My stating the fact that Gould was dead when both articles (Bradley's and Dawkin's) were written is an ad hominem??

[Thatcherite]

Well, thanks for the info, but it really does not matter to me what his politics are as long as he keeps them where he lives. And a blessed and happy Thanksgiving to you, your family and friends.

A Great Thanksgiving to all Freepers, even the rebellious elements in the colonies.

I think we'd all be happier if Dawkins stuck to the science and stayed away from pronouncements about politics, where really his opinion is no more valid than anyone else's .

Curiously in the past the left has had a go at Dawkins for presenting a right-wing perspective of evolution. If you read just the "Selfish Gene" in particular without knowing that Dawkins is leftish you'd come away with the impression that he was right-wing. He remarks in particular about the selfishness of organised labor in the UK and the damage caused by it. But Dawkins side-comments in "Selfish Gene" were against a backdrop of the appalling failed consensus socialist governments of the 60's and 70's in the UK. He has since suggested that he regrets the form of words that he used in SG and generally his recent political comments appear well to the left, particularly looney Michael-Moorish stuff about Bush stealing the election from Gore.

AndrewC look away if you aren't interested in UK politics. The lib dems were historically the centre-party of UK politics. But over the last 10-15 years they appear to have moved leftward in their rhetoric while labour has moved rightward in its rhetoric. They advocate much closer ties with the EU than the other major parties, and they openly advocate higher taxation. They opposed the Iraq war which turns out to have been a smart move in short-term UK political advantage. In the longer term who knows; we'll have to wait to see how it pans out though it isn't looking great at the moment.

Increasingly it is hard to tell the lib-dems and new labour apart because new labour is a lot more re-distributive and aggressively socialist and nannying than most of its rhetoric would suggest. New Labour has already presided over a giant increase in the tax burden since 1997 yet the lib-dems declare enthusiastically that they would increase taxes by even more. The only reason that the higher tax isn't biting is (IMO) because (a) they inherited a great economic position in 1997 (b) they continued with conservative economic policies until 1999 (c) the world economy has performed well in general since then with the flood of cheap far-eastern imports keeping prices down. Gordon Brown's high spending is continuing to drive growth through expansion of the public sector but freepers know where growth driven that way ends.

[Thatcherite]

What part of realizing that a man is far more complex than a Rolex don't you understand. Evolution violates fundamental laws of nature. Devolving is the fundamental law of nature not the reverse.

I am intrigued. I wasn't aware that Rolex's are imperfect replicators. If that is the case they really ought to be much cheaper, or is the feed very expensive? Or do they not breed very successfully?

[Ichneumon]

My stating the fact that Gould was dead when both articles (Bradley's and Dawkin's) were written is an ad hominem??

Please do not feed the Troll.

[AndrewC]

My stating the fact that Gould was dead when both articles (Bradley's and Dawkin's) were written is an ad hominem??

NO!! Now see how things go awry. I meant that Dawkins Ad Hominem was a doozy since Gould could not be there to defend whether he had read the book or not. I have not characterized you in any way, that would be Ad Hominem on my part.

[AndrewC]

AndrewC look away if you aren't interested in UK politics.

Arrgh, I looked. Pretty interesting information. We seem to be fracturing /realigning here in the U.S. also. Who would have believed Republicans tanking supply as an option against high oil prices, and spending like drunken Democrats away from momma on a business trip.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and all you love.

[AndrewC]

Here's the matching kettle.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"NO!! Now see how things go awry."

Ok, wasn't sure exactly what you meant. :) All this turkey is making me sleepy lol.


"I meant that Dawkins Ad Hominem was a doozy since Gould could not be there to defend whether he had read the book or not. "

But it wasn't an ad hominem. Gould made statements about Dawkin's book that clearly indicated he either

a) Hadn't read it.
b) Had read it and but chose to ignore parts of it.

Dawkins charitably chose to conclude A. It was a conclusion based on the evidence before him; if it was an attack on Gould's character it was certainly germaine to the claim Gould made. I would have picked B. Gould had done this thing before, notably with E. O. Wilson when he wrote Sociobiology in 1975. Gould signed on to the following in an article in the New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9017

"The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist theories is that they consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race or sex. Historically, powerful countries or ruling groups within them have drawn support for the maintenance or extension of their power from these products of the scientific community. For example, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. said.

The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest…. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.

These theories provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws and restrictive immigration laws by the United States between 1910 and 1930 and also for the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany."

Gould was very quick to throw around charges of racism and eugenics when the science went against HIS political views.

Just because he is dead doesn't mean you can't point out where was wrong, or where he may have acted wrongly.
To claim that Dawkin's is the one using an ad hominem is to get it exactly backwards.

[AndrewC]

But it wasn't an ad hominem. Gould made statements about Dawkin's book that clearly indicated he either

And this is how Dawkins characterized it.

it appears that Gould didn't read it either. Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds?

That is Ad Hominem. I would also guess from what I have seen of Gould that he would have read the book. I have it on good authority that Gould was a scientist of some good quality.

Ironically, the only time Bradley comes anywhere near criticising his hero Gould, Gould is right and Bradley wrong. He wonders whether Gould may have gone over the top in suggesting that the evolutionary rise of humanity is a complete historical accident. I am with most biologists in agreeing that Gould's point is so obviously true that it never needed saying. We had thought that Gould was, not for the first time, attacking a non-existent straw man. But even straw men occasionally exist, and this one appears to be instantiated in the form of Clive Bradley. You can see why it would appeal to his politics. It might be thought to appeal to Gould's politics too, but Gould is too good a scientist to let that distort his perception of nature. ---- Dawkins

P.S. Gould died in 2002, Dawkins response was in 2000, I guess I have to revise "doozy".

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" That is Ad Hominem. I would also guess from what I have seen of Gould that he would have read the book."

That is most definitely not ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack on character that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Dawkin's critique most certainly DID have to do with Gould's claims about the Selfish Gene. It was a reasonable, and charitable, conclusion based on the comments that Gould made about The Selfish Gene. I agree with you, I suspect that Gould read the book too; which is why I would have chosen choice B and said that Gould was lying about what Dawkins said. Dawkins instead chose to make the less harsh of the two accusations.

"I have it on good authority that Gould was a scientist of some good quality."

He was, but he made some stupid antagonistic attacks on some other scientists who had differing views, often smearing them with the title of racist and eugenicist because Gould was a Marxist. Gould DID attack Dawkins because of the perceived reactionary political consequences of Dawkin's work.

" P.S. Gould died in 2002, Dawkins response was in 2000, I guess I have to revise "doozy".

That was my mistake. The article didn't have a date on it, and when I googled "Workers Liberty #59", the article Bradley's article was in, I erroneously saw "Solidarity 3/59 ESF Extra, 7 October 2004 | Workers' Liberty" and thought that was it. Doesn't change anything. Dawkins didn't commit an ad hominem; he was the victim of one.

Now, for the third time, what does this have to do with anything? Even if we agreed that Dawkins committed an ad hominem attack (which I think is ridiculous), what does that have to do with the claim that was brought forth here earlier that evolution is the basis of Marxism/Communism?

[NewLand]

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences

Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."

Just like that? It doesn't matter if the site is biased; what matters is the substance of the arguments put forth. Creationist sites are equally biased against evolution (and much of science in general). In order to debate them though, we still have to argue their points. We do. You apparently don't feel the need to make substantive arguments against evolutionists; just saying they are biased against creationism is enough for you. It isn't for us. If you have a disagreement with a claim made on Talk Origins, make it. Hand waving it away makes you look afraid to address the substance of the issue.

[AndrewC]

It is Ad Hominem to argue against the person instead of the argument. And what does that have to do with the claim that was brought forth here earlier that evolution is the basis of Marxism/Communism?

Nothing more than what I posted in 617 to starbase, Interesting the twists of the internet.

You brought up the other question.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is Ad Hominem to argue against the person instead of the argument."

Not when the person's character is at the center of the issue. Dawkins was defending himself against scurrilous attacks that his science was a result of his alleged politics. Pointing out that it was apparent that Gould had not read "The Selfish Gene" because Dawkins addresses the very issue of reductionism and the ethical implications in that book is NOT ad hominem. The only other option Dawkins had was to assume Gould had read it and chose to ignore it. Dawkins was gracious enough to assume that Gould's error was in not reading the book instead of lying.

[JCEccles]

Defending Dawkins from scurrilous ad hominem attacks is like defending Bill Clinton from being lied about.

[AndrewC]

Not when the person's character is at the center of the issue. Dawkins was defending himself against scurrilous attacks that his science was a result of his alleged politics

It certainly is when Gould was not the writer of the article to which Dawkins was responding.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Defending Dawkins from scurrilous ad hominem attacks is like defending Bill Clinton from being lied about."

Not when it is justified to do so.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It certainly is when Gould was not the writer of the article to which Dawkins was responding."

So? The writer of the article was comparing Gould and Dawkins. Their differences was the issue of Bradley's article, with Bradley taking Gould's side exclusively. Bradley's arguments were all from Gould. In order to defend himself from Bradley, he had to simultaneously correct Gould's errors as well. Was he snippy? I would be too. Was it ad hominem? Only if you redefine ad hominem.

[AndrewC]

So? The writer of the article was comparing Gould and Dawkins.

So. You attack the argument not someone who is not "there" to argue. Dawkins already stated he had handled the arguments made by Gould.

Bradley quotes Stephen (yes, Stephen, well done, Clive) Jay Gould's criticism of alleged atomism in The Selfish Gene, and describes it as "a devastating criticism of not only a scientific approach, but an entire philosophical world-view." Bradley says, "To my knowledge, Dawkins and his co-thinkers have not bothered to respond to this criticism." Let me add to his knowledge. On page 271-272 of the Second Edition of The Selfish Gene, I quote the very same paragraph from Gould, and refute it (really).