Replies

It isn't. If you read Bradley's article which provoked the response by Dawkins, you will see that Bradley clearly implied that Dawkins was being influenced by his politics, which he thinks is right-wing. For instance, he says,

Yes, having now read Clive's article, he does bring up political considerations, but that does not make Dawkin's response any less a straw man, Ad Hominem. Primarily since Gould is not an active participant in the exchange. He was quoted and characterized by Clive. So the charge that he did not read the book is uncalled for. Looking at comments that Clive made it is not astonishing that Dawkins responded as he did.

Gould's method is, it seems to me, that of a real scientist able to take into account aspects of the broader picture, rather than of a vicious polemical idiot, which is how Dawkins et al tend to interpret him. Dawkins simply never asks questions about his own ideological bias, or if he asks them, only dismisses the question as absurd.

It is not merely, however, that it is politically distasteful to recognise any validity to Dawkins' theory. The theory is wrong. It is wrong in the sense that both Rose and Gould have outlined so eloquently. It reduces a complex reality, which includes social relations, to a molecule. The host of "genes for" this, that, and the other which have been "discovered" suffer from the same methodological and philosophical pitfalls.

Dawkins' conjecture is not a theory. It is conjecture.

"Yes, having now read Clive's article, he does bring up political considerations, but that does not make Dawkin's response any less a straw man, Ad Hominem."

Bradley's article was a gross misreading of Dawkin's book. He said that Dawkins was against Punctuated Equalibria because of his politics, which is not true. He tried to paint him as a right-winger, which is untrue. It's Bradley who created the Strawman, not Dawkins. Dawkins was understandably irritated by Bradley's piece, since in his book, he specifically refutes the kind of simpleminded interpretations of *the selfish gene* that Bradley creates. THAT is why he said that he didn't read his book; if he had he wouldn't have made such obvious mischaracterizations of the book.

"Primarily since Gould is not an active participant in the exchange. He was quoted and characterized by Clive. So the charge that he did not read the book is uncalled for."

Not really. Dawkins made that statement in reference to some well know criticisms by Gould that showed that Gould had either not read The Selfish Gene, or had deliberately mischaracterized it. Dawkins was being kind by choosing the former.

"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).

Moreover, in the course of this very full reply, I quote the First Edition of The Selfish Gene as making precisely the same points, in detail, as Gould himself was later to make. Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either."

That's not an ad hominem. It's a valid criticism. And, as I said, it showed some restraint to say that Gould hadn't read it instead of saying what he probably felt, that he had read it but simply ignored it.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with the idea proposed earlier that Darwin is responsible for communism.

Now, back to the turkey. :)