Skip to comments.
Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think [Book Review]
International Herald Tribune ^
| 28 June 2006
| Nicholas Wade (reviewer)
Posted on 06/28/2006 5:16:22 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Thirty years ago, the young Richard Dawkins set out to explain some new ideas in evolutionary biology to a wider audience. But he ended up restating Darwinian theory in such a broad and forceful way that his book has influenced specialists as well.
"Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think" is a collection of essays about Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" and its impact. [snip]
The biologists have copious praise for Dawkins's work of synthesis, while the writers remark on his graceful and vivid style. It is quite surprising for anyone to be commended from such opposite quarters, but "The Selfish Gene," published in 1976, was unusual. Written in clear and approachable language, it worked its way so logically into the core of Darwinian theory that even evolutionary biologists were seduced into embracing Dawkins's view of their world.
Dawkins's starting point was the idea that the gene, not the individual, is the basic unit on which natural selection acts. The gene's behavior is most easily understood by assuming its interest is to get itself replicated as much as possible - hence the "selfish" gene of the title.
[big snip]
Despite a fond appreciation in this volume from his local cleric, the bishop of Oxford, Dawkins has become known to a wider public as a rationalist and a vocal atheist with little time for forms of religious obscurantism like creationism.
[snip to the end]
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevoslit; enoughalready; evolution; pavlovian; richarddawkins; selfishgene
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
Gotta excerpt articles from this source.
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2
posted on
06/28/2006 5:17:44 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
Richard Dawkins, wasn`t he the host of Family Feud? It`s time to play the feuuuuud! Now give me a kiss!
3
posted on
06/28/2006 5:19:36 PM PDT
by
Screamname
(Why the hell is Kathy Boudin out on parole??)
To: PatrickHenry
Dawkins is great. When he sticks to subjects he knows something about.
4
posted on
06/28/2006 5:29:28 PM PDT
by
D-fendr
To: D-fendr
as anti religous bigots go he is pretty smart
===> Lurking marker <===
6
posted on
06/28/2006 5:37:42 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: D-fendr
Dawkins is great. When he sticks to subjects he knows something about He knows very little about the origins of life.
7
posted on
06/28/2006 5:44:16 PM PDT
by
Mogollon
To: PatrickHenry
I'm chagrined to admit that I haven't yet read The Selfish Gene, but I've read The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, and they were superb.
8
posted on
06/28/2006 5:44:57 PM PDT
by
Physicist
To: PatrickHenry
I remember hearing about this theory awhile back. Didn't know it was Dawkins.
What's your take?
9
posted on
06/28/2006 5:46:48 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: lonestar67
He has issues with logic occasionally, if it's true he believes the natural world disproves the spiritual world. But I thought this idea of his was very intriguing.
10
posted on
06/28/2006 5:48:46 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: Mogollon
11
posted on
06/28/2006 5:49:38 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: Mogollon
"He knows very little about the origins of life."
who among us knows more?
12
posted on
06/28/2006 6:06:11 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: stands2reason
What's your take?I'm not really qualified to judge his work. I'll leave that to his peers. They're almost uniformly favorable.
13
posted on
06/28/2006 6:10:32 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
The tiny circulation figures for the NYT shows how few people ever read the paper. 99 percent of each issue is about the 5 boroughs of New York City of interest only to the locals.
It is questionable whether the NYT has any influence any more. It has been marginalized ever since 1958 when it helped Castro take over Cuba.
To prosecute the NYT would be to give it publicity it does not deserve.
The New York Times? Who dat be?
To: PatrickHenry; Physicist
I gotta read that book.
I should read more biology books. I usually just focus on the philosophy of science. The last good science book that wasn't just a compilation of mag articles was about the Fleishmann-Pons cold fusion episode called "Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy" by F. David Peat. A good primer in pseudoscience.
Hello!?! What is this? Added to my WTF?files are the following "5-star" rated volumes....
Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion
Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition)
Can you guys tell me if this BS is BS?
15
posted on
06/28/2006 6:39:11 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: R.W.Ratikal
Sorry, but the NYT still sets the pace for 'Rat talking points and (MSM)media coverage of "stories".
16
posted on
06/28/2006 6:41:18 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
To: PatrickHenry
The gene's behavior is most easily understood by assuming its interest is to get itself replicated as much as possible Implies sentience [a capacity for basic consciousness]. Where does that come from? This is the foundational weakness of evolution...totally illogical!
17
posted on
06/28/2006 6:41:19 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: stands2reason
I'd guess that there is something to cold (catalytic) fusion, but it may never be highly energy positive.
18
posted on
06/28/2006 6:43:37 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
To: LiteKeeper
Implies sentience [a capacity for basic consciousness]. Where does that come from? This is the foundational weakness of evolution...totally illogical!
You are taking the allegorical concept too literally.
19
posted on
06/28/2006 7:16:19 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Dawkins has never implied that he was speaking allegorically...no way!
20
posted on
06/28/2006 7:29:36 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson