Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan
The Dialectical Biologist

Richard Levins + Richard Lewontin

Harvard University Press 1985

A book review by Danny Yee © 1993 http://dannyreviews.com/ The Dialectical Biologist is a collection of essays on various aspects of biology. Richard Lewontin is a population geneticist and Richard Levins is an ecologist, and they are both world-famous within their fields. Here they are writing as Marxists (and dialectical materialists), and it is this that gives this book its unique perspective. It was by reading this book that I first came to an understanding of the dialectical method and attained some grasp of Marx and Engel's broader philosophy. Perhaps this is because my understanding of biology is better than my understanding of economics and political theory, or perhaps it is simply because Marx's writings are difficult to come to grips with and the commentary on them is so contentious.

171 posted on 09/11/2008 4:19:31 PM PDT by E=MC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]


To: E=MC2; GourmetDan

A scientist who’s a Marxist.

And your point is?


178 posted on 09/11/2008 4:31:00 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

To: E=MC2; GourmetDan

THIS Danny Lee?

Funny I don’t recognize a single name amongst his “circle of friends”....

http://danny.oz.au/people/

but I sure as hell DO recognize the websites he’s been on today!

http://danny.oz.au/blog/

Here’s one article he’s read:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/8/1572/82153/661/591235

You godless liberals posing as conservatives are just too damned funny!


183 posted on 09/11/2008 4:42:51 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

To: E=MC2
"Richard Lewontin is a population geneticist and Richard Levins is an ecologist, and they are both world-famous within their fields. Here they are writing as Marxists (and dialectical materialists), and it is this that gives this book its unique perspective."

The error in your logic is that their political opinions negate their admissions wrt science. That is a non sequitur.

Taking your position to it's logical conclusion, you would need to identify exactly the proper political opinions that a scientist must hold before we can rely on their admissions wrt science. Further, your political beliefs may negate your informed admissions in any area that a liberal would disagree with for the same reason. This is simply a fallacious position.

I know you don't understand, but you put yourself in a position that basically invalidates your own arguments.

321 posted on 09/12/2008 1:39:43 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson