Replies

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".

" 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?