Replies

"No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary."

Only if you redefine ad hominem. Gould either didn't read the book or lied about it's contents. I say lied; Dawkins said didn't read. You say, stop picking on poor Gould.

"No. That was a strawman."

Only if you redefine strawman. It was exactly what your logic implied.

This is getting very old now. It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch. We have spent the good part of a day arguing over whether Dawkins made an ad hominem, when your bringing up the alleged ad hominem had no point to begin with. What if he did (he didn't, but let's say he did for the sake of argument) ? So what? What does that prove? A scientist made a slightly snarky comment about a colleague? Have you ever read a bio of Newton? He excelled at the ad hominem, and I mean real ad hominems. That doesn't mean a damn thing about the validity of his science.

I should have taken Ichneumon's advice. This discussion is over.

This is getting very old now. It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch. We have spent the good part of a day arguing over whether Dawkins made an ad hominem, when your bringing up the alleged ad hominem had no point to begin with. What if he did (he didn't, but let's say he did for the sake of argument) ? So what? What does that prove? A scientist made a slightly snarky comment about a colleague? Have you ever read a bio of Newton? He excelled at the ad hominem, and I mean real ad hominems. That doesn't mean a damn thing about the validity of his science.

An interjection from someone who has only cursorily read the thread. It would help if people who understood the atmosphere in biology in the late 70's. I was starting grad. school at the time at Harvard, where on the one hand Gould and Lewontin were standing for a particular left wing view of evolution; and on the other E. O. Wilson had continued, with his magnificent Sociobiology, Dawkins' insights on behavioral evolution in The Selfish Gene.

This wasn't a genteel argument. Gould and Lewontin were, if not organizing, then encouraging demonstrations against Wilson and disruptions of his lectures. Wilson and Dawkins they saw as the successors of the Social Darwinists. Gould and Lewontin justified their extremism as revolutionary action (they were, of course, Marxists). The argument went on for perhaps 20 years, though Wilson and Dawkins have unequivocally won.

What I find amusing is that all the while our creationist friends are claiming Darwinism to be at the root of Marxism, they are on the side of those who stood with Marxism against developments in evolutionary theory that threatened it. Dawkins' politics appear to be squishy liberal; Wilson was one of the founders of the National Association of Scholars, a conservative faculty organization.

Creationism has some strange bedfellows, and I don't mean the Senator.

Only if you redefine strawman. It was exactly what your logic implied.

I implied nothing, which is evidence you made up a strawman as much as Dawkins did by bringing up an insult about Gould. Despite your obstinate refusal to read and understand, the fact remains, Dawkins stated an unproven allegation against a person. That is Ad Hominem. Second you asserted that I implied something. Well, I get to tell you that I implied no such thing, something that Gould did not get to do with Dawkins, since Gould was not involved as an author in the workers party exchange. See this?

Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem.

No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary.

Having told you that I did not imply what you drew from it, makes your stretch quite a strawman. Something you built to argue about and beat up. Nice job of strawman building.