Richard Dawkins recants

[ALB]

I didn't notice it at the time but in an epilogue to the 40th anniversary edition of his notorious book The Selfish Gene that came out last year and republished in the March/April 2017 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists ("embryologists" he calls them) who are studying how they affect an organism's characteristics. He also concedes that "genes" (in his sense) are often closely associated with other "genes" and that it is only together that they have an effect. The book's title has been changed to The Extended Selfish Gene (reflecting a previous backtracking on what he wrote in 1976).

Quote:

They are also cooperative with other genes with which they share, not just the present particular body, but bodies in general, generated by the species' gene pool.

and so

Quote:

The Cooperative Gene would have been an equally appropriate title for this book…

Pity it wasn't. But it was and reflected the popular misconception that at the time was being promoted more than usual that humans were "naturally" selfish because this was genetically determined. Why did Dawkins agree to his book being called The Selfish Gene? No doubt because its publishers thought it would sell more with that title as opposed to The Cooperative Gene.  So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

Shock!!!A bourgeois academic, who employs the 'politically-neutral scientific method', and claims to be a scientist who produces 'Objective Truth', and has elite access to 'The Real World'…… actually is full of ideology.Must come as a big surprise to the Religious Materialists here, eh, ALB?Or are they all 'unwittingly perhaps' still listening to 'matter'?

[LBird]

Is a 'gene' a piece of 'matter', or a social product, that we can change?What can we assume from your post, ALB?You seem to assume that a 'gene' is a socio-historical product, that changes over time, and is rooted in a social context.What does 'gene' have to do with 'matter'?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I didn't notice it at the time but in an epilogue to the 40th anniversary edition of his notorious book The Selfish Gene that came out last year and republished in the March/April 2017 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists ("embryologists" he calls them) who are studying how they affect an organism's characteristics. He also concedes that "genes" (in his sense) are often closely associated with other "genes" and that it is only together that they have an effect. The book's title has been changed to The Extended Selfish Gene (reflecting a previous backtracking on what he wrote in 1976).

Quote:

They are also cooperative with other genes with which they share, not just the present particular body, but bodies in general, generated by the species' gene pool.

and so

Quote:

The Cooperative Gene would have been an equally appropriate title for this book…

Pity it wasn't. But it was and reflected the popular misconception that at the time was being promoted more than usual that humans were "naturally" selfish because this was genetically determined. Why did Dawkins agree to his book being called The Selfish Gene? No doubt because its publishers thought it would sell more with that title as opposed to The Cooperative Gene.  So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

  Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/co-operation-makes-sense

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

Yes, I know your 'position', robbo, and my 'obsseesion' is to find out why you, like all materialists, refuse to say who would produce these 'scientific values' which you already agree are within 'science'.In a democratic society, like socialism, surely all 'values' are 'social values', and thus should be amenable to democratic production?Or, if, like all materialists, you disagree with the democratic production of 'values', why not state openly which elite will produce these 'scientific values'?Not a 'derail' – in fact, in the context of Dawkins uncomfortable wriggling (over time, and about politics) about 'genes', surely a key question?Are 'scientific values' socio-political products, or are they 'material', simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'?And if they are 'material', why can't everybody know them? Why is 'matter' restricted to a 'knowing elite'?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

Yes, I know your 'position', robbo, and my 'obsseesion' is to find out why you, like all materialists, refuse to say who would produce these 'scientific values' which you already agree are within 'science'.In a democratic society, like socialism, surely all 'values' are 'social values', and thus should be amenable to democratic production?Or, if, like all materialists, you disagree with the democratic production of 'values', why not state openly which elite will produce these 'scientific values'?Not a 'derail' – in fact, in the context of Dawkins uncomfortable wriggling (over time, and about politics) about 'genes', surely a key question?Are 'scientific values' socio-political products, or are they 'material', simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'?And if they are 'material', why can't everybody know them? Why is 'matter' restricted to a 'knowing elite'?

 Yawn.  Ive  responded to these misrepresentations of yours on other threads so if you genuinely want to find out what my answers are to your ulteriorly motivated questions, I suggest you go back  to those earlier threads, LBird .  Dont derail this one.I repeat – just becuase knowledge is socially produced and conditioned,  does not mean each and every one of us must become omniscient and fully knowledgeable in each and every subject under the sun.  That is obvious except to someone so muddled and deluded as your good self, .  There is no "scientific elite" in that sense in my book  – only a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us as well as all of us being, to some extent generalists in other things. End of story…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists…

The political question is 'who gets to define?'.Why was Dawkins' personal 'definition' accepted as 'science', then?Why is the genetists' elite 'definition' accepted as 'science', now?Why do these 'definitions' change, if they are based upon 'matter' which is 'out there'?Clearly, 'genes' are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.Science can't be left to an elite, who will produce 'definitions' which reflect their own elite interests and purposes. The bourgeois scientists are lying when they claim to be 'disinterested' (or 'dispurposeless').The purpose of 'matter' is to bolster 'property'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

  Another long winded attempt to repeat the same drivel and ignore  the same points made against you LBird.  Nice one.  But why am I not surprised ?  You are a past master in the art of deception and distortion. How  you can possibly deduce from that I said  that I am " really interested" only in what benefiits me and  not how I can benefit others,  I cannot imagine,  But then when it comes to a fertile imagination I defer to you every time L BirdNot content with fantasy you resorrt to fibbing as in this little gem ,  "So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls,  Actually LBird I specifically set up a thread precisely to "talk" about the subject of democratic production in socialism which you conspicuously shied away from ,  See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracyMRI scanners, tins of baked bins,  and size 43 brown boots with reinforced toecaps are all "social products",  Could you explain to me in simple terms how you propose to involve 7.5 billion people in a "democratic process" of  deciding on the design and output of these things?  I'm all ears, LBird.  Or could it be that actually it is YOU who refuses to entertain any talk about the democratic production of these social products?The same argument applies to the question of genes.  Genes, you say, are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.,  So you propose that 7.5 billion people should "vote on the definition of a gene" –  yes? There are really only two questions I would ask, then,  since youve expressed such a keen interest in talking about this subject:1) Why does it matter so much to you that the definition of gene should be "collectively voted upon"?   If me and my buddy thought  a gene was one thing and you thought it was something else would the fact that you had been outvoted 2 to 1 cause you to change your mind about what a gene was?  Why? 2) How are you going to organise a vote among 7.5 billion people and who is going to organise it?.  Would the vote on the defintion of a gene come before or after the vote on the tins of baked beans once weve had the Revolution? What, in your esteemed opinion, do you consider to be the more pressing subject for the world populace to get to grips with just so I can know for sure where my priorities  should lie?Im sure you are dying to tell us  and I for one would deeply appreciate a direct answer to both of these simple questions     

[LBird]

So, you don't agree on the democratic production of 'genes' then, robbo. Fair enough.Who, in your version of 'socialism', will produce 'genes'?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, you don't agree on the democratic production of 'genes' then, robbo. Fair enough.Who, in your version of 'socialism', will produce 'genes'?

 Could you first answer my questions LBird 1) Why do you need a democratic vote on what a gene is?and2) How do you organise this democractic vote among 7.5 billion people? Thank you

[LBird]

For my ideology, robbo, 'democracy' is an inherent part of 'socialism'.For your ideology, 'democracy' is not an inherent part of 'socialism'.Thus, based upon your basic absence of 'democracy', you need a political justification as to 'why' have democracy.The 'how' is merely a detail which follows from our opposed ideologies.My political justification is that 'socialism is necessarily democratic'. So, I don't agree with those who argue that 'socialism isn't necessarily democratic'.These are political beliefs which I hold.You don't hold my political beliefs, because your version of 'socialism' is 'individualistic', rather than 'democratic'.Since I hold that 'socialism is democratic', I also hold that all social production within a socialist society must be democratic.Since you hold that 'socialism is individualistic', you hold that some or all social production can be individualistic.Finally, I've said all this before, but you can't accept it, because then your individualism will be undermined. You must have a recourse to an 'individual reality', a 'biological necessity', a 'real world' outside of 'social production', which comes down to your ideology of 'materialism'.You can touch 'matter', and you won't have 'matter' voted out of 'existence', which it could be if we lived in a democratic socialist society, where 'matter' could be changed to something more suitable for our interests and purposes.Just like 'genes' could be.I argue that only society can decide these issues, whereas you, like all materialists, argue that 'individuals' decide their 'personal reality'.

[LBird]

The bottom line is that 'genes' are a political issue.Even if Dawkins really didn't realise it at the time, clearly he realised it later.I suspect that the SPGB realised it at the time, and published reviews critical of The Selfish Gene.Why this is problematic now, I don't know.Put simply, 'science is political'.

[Author]

Posts