dawkins is retarded

The Selfish Gene is not a scientific work but an ideological work that precisely embeds capitalist ideology into biology as a new biologism.

As science it's nonsense. The implicit teleology in the book (the goal is the replication of the gene, the organism merely the vehicle) would, in terms of the efficiency requirement in natural selection, create a situation where more complex organisms are inherently less efficient at the fundamental goal. So with that teleology there would be no increase in complexity through the natural selection Dawkins is at pains to protect as the driving force of evolution. in Dawkins' biologism, the more complex the organism, the less valuable.

This is the same as the capitalist move from use-value to exchange-value as the goal. Rather than the goal being to produce useful products, the beginning of the process is money as capital, which is turned into products only in order to create more exchange-value, more capital. The capitalist fantasy of a "frictionless" economy, i.e. the creation and sale of products with no cost friction, is mirrored in the idea of a "frictionless" conversion from exchange-value (genes) to more exchange-value (genes) without the cost of an organism.

This embedding of capitalist ideology into biology reduces the value of human beings and other complex organisms to nothing more than an unfortunate cost of exchange, which could ideally be done away with. As a result it also justifies the practical devaluing of human beings in a more fundamental way even than social darwinism. What's the issue with treating human beings as collateral damage in the quest for profit - they're nothing more than a vehicle for self-replicating molecules to achieve their goal of multiplying anyway.

In a book entitled "The Selfish Gene" purporting to prove the theory of blind genetic control over animal behavior, the first thing the reader expects is a discussion of genetic mechanisms and the biochemical interaction between said genes and behavior. To this point, I find it odd that only in the first chapter, and only over several paragraphs at that, does Dawkins discuss the A,C,G,T mainframe and protein synthesis.

From what I can tell, Dawkins suffers from the basest of Philosophical mistakes - he uses a certain pre-supposition to advance a theory without ever PROVING the pre-supposition at hand. In this case, Dawkins argues that the Gene's desire to replicate is the answer behind evolution...unfortunately he fails to realize THIS IS WHAT HE MUST PROVE! Rather than laying out the direct scientific links between individual genes and their related behaviors, Dawkins speaks only of the later behaviors never once proving that Genes had anything to do with them.

In a nut-shell, had this book been entitled "The Evolution of Behavior" I could have accepted it - unfortunately, as it stands, this book attempts to prove a Genetic theory it never once even considers.

Don't be fooled - to prove the existence of a certain behavior and later attribute it to genetic coding is no different than to prove the existance of the same behavior and later attribute it to the will of God. In each case a point is made, but the underlying supposition is never proven.

Dawkins warns his readers that his language, where it constantly may appear to hold `subjective' or `moral' or teleological content, does not really--in fact it is argued to hold no real connotations beyond that of figuratively describing `programmed machines.' He says, "it is convenient for me to use the language of purpose as a metaphor in explaining the behaviour of survival machines." All of biology answers finally, and ultimately, to "the `gold-standard' of evolution, gene survival." When he conjures "units of detriment" and "a generalized altruism investment measure," he qualifies his own language as being less than ideal because it over emphasizes non-genetic influences. "In many respects, however, this is just a quibble," he goes on to say, and such descriptions may be "well worth using in practice." It cannot go unnoticed that Dawkins fills pages with this fancy philological footwork--indeed he must if he has any hope of deflecting the otherwise all too obvious inevitability that he is contradicting himself. "Investing" in new generations, "life insurance risks", etc--these terms are just metaphors, all that's really going on is gene selfishness, which, by the way, isn't really gene "selfishness," of course! But, practically speaking, it really is!

Any line of argument that has such a difficult time hiding from itself, and must invoke such all-encompassing effusiveness in an attempt to do so, should invite much more skepticism than this storied storybook has inspired in many supposedly "scientific" sectors! Several well regarded philosophers of science have forcefully rebutted Dawkins, the most enjoyable to read perhaps being the late David Stove, who observed, "If the question were asked, then, whether Dawkins really believes that genes are selfish in the ordinary sense, the answer best supported by the text of [The Selfish Gene] would be: "of course he doesn't; yes he does." Another philosopher (M. Midgley) has noted that Dawkins presents "the useful art of open, manly self-contradiction."

This ubiquitous slipperiness is not the only problem here. We are also given the `problem' of altruism (which, of course, cannot really be altruism). In the first chapter, Dawkins pleads, "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism . . . Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs . . ." He goes on to reiterate this later. In Dawkins hands, there is nothing but nonsense at play here. He has already stated that "the gene's law of universal ruthlessness" may be "very nasty," but this "does not stop it being true." He invokes "generosity and altruism"--which "the `gold standard' of evolution" demands cannot really be "generosity and altruism," he speaks of genes' "selfish" "designs"--which he will tell us aren't really "selfish" or maybe even "designs," but he does two things that are even weirder. He suggests that what he sees as THE ultimate hard and true `law' of biology can be set aside if we sufficiently will to do so (ultra-Darwinian `selfishness' is absolutely true and constant unless we don't want it to be--something that hardly fits with his own arguments!), and, he suggests that organisms ("survival machines"), namely "us", who do not actually possess "generosity and altruism" are to (in our somehow Enlightened position?) "teach" these mythological qualities to others--who cannot, per the "very nasty" gene's "selfishness," actually receive these pedantic gifts! How is any of this reconciled to Dawkins' core doctrine that, "There is really only one entity whose point of view matters in evolution, and that entity is the selfish gene" (Dawkins' inevitable winner is NOT our desire to make pretend "altruism" become genuine altruism!)? He is spitting into the wind. And who can constitute this "us" of Dawkins', that is to ask, who can impart something that he has been precluded from actually possessing, to another (who, incidentally, is also precluded by `law' from actually receiving it!)? And what IS this external standard that presumes to identify our putative `gold standard' as being "nasty"? Explain "nasty" without contradicting yourself, Dr Dawkins! Presumably his answer will be that "nasty" isn't really "nasty"! The real problem for Dawkins and the sociobiologists is a theory that must insist that altruism and generosity are "problems". A theory that defines an Albert Schweitzer or a Mother Teresa or a Florence Nightingale as "problems" to be `explained away' by appeal to a convoluted canon of infallible doctrine, is self-evidently silly--is, in fact, silly in the exact same sense as variously maligned religious nonsense. Whatever capital the `selfish theorist' might believe he gains over the theist by invoking a "problem of evil," he will soon enough find that he will have to more than repay given the awkward burden of his own "problem of goodness." (While one can certainly argue as to whether it is adequate or not, the theist's "problem of evil" is inherently addressed, and perhaps answered in part, by admitting to any significant degree of freedom [of the will and/or of quantum 'openness'], which is obviously why Dawkins, in his assumed role as atheistic "chaplain," has so frequently stated that he is "not interested" in `free will'. One wonders if he (a), believes he freely chooses this disinterest, or whether (b), his genes "selfishly" dictate it! As compared to the possible concomitant implications of freedom, the Dawkins/sociobiology problem of "altruism" has no similarly logical mitigation, all that is available to IT is the dogmatic demand that "altruism" MUST be a manipulative expression of selfishness--by mere `reason' of doctrine alone!)

Dawkins may be the most famous living biologist, a kind of `rock star' we might say, but his fame traces only to a popularizer's pen, he hasn't "discovered" anything biological--except, some of his myriad fans may counter, "memes", which he has named and identified as cultural `units of imitation'. The sociobiologists seem to have been greatly impressed. Less indoctrinated and more disciplined and skeptical minds have not. Some excellent philosophers have had great sport with the meme "theory". Memes are said to be ideas that "propagate themselves." Yes, themSELVES. They "should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically." They "literally parasitize" other brains by means of "infective power". This may be an interestingly artful package of language for describing the spreading of ideas, but does choosing this artful story and package of language constitute biological "science"? Good grief. If it does, almost anything might! Well, if a man is "taught Pythagoras's Theorem at school, his brain has been parasitized by a certain micro-maggot which, 2,600 years earlier, had parasitized the brain of Pythagoras," says Stove mockingly. "And if a man already believes that genes are selfish, why also should he not believe that prime numbers are sex mad, or that geometrical theorems are brain parasites?"

Well, enough of memes, they have gotten more attention than they merit. Although the difficulties for The Selfish Gene are easily recognized by anyone whose brain hasn't been "parasitized" by Dawkins, EO Wilson, and the sociobiologists generally, the books seminal logical flaw of logical flaws is Dawkins' mythic `selfish gene' itself. There is a stunning (and strictly human) vanity to the proposal that there is an "advantage" to an individual organism that is provided by means of replication/ reproduction. Sure, my progeny -might- look after me in my old age, but let's face it, this motivation would hardly fit comfortably into the "selfish theory"! In case anyone has come up with a logically consistent explanation as to how replication can be an "advantage" to the parent organism (or gene), skeptical and analytical minds would like to hear it. I certainly haven't. But there is a conspicuously large space for vanity in the "selfish theory." If I assume the role of a `selfish theorist' I can happily tell you that the genealogical studies of my daughter have revealed a family tree containing some `impressive' personages. For example, Beli Mawr, a Celtic king said to have been a god in pre-Roman Britain, turns out to be one of my ancestors. The obvious question of any clear-headed skeptic is this--what "benefit" or "advantage" does my existence confer upon my `god' father, Beli Mawr (or any other ancestor)? At this point, I may puff out my chest and say something like, "well, just look at me--how can you not see it!" As if my existence does in fact confer something upon him of individual, even "selfish," benefit! How Dawkins and EO Wilson have blessed their ancestors (actually reaching back and providing them a "benefit" or even an "advantage")! Well, selfish theorists, unless you've got something a lot more impressive than that, I'm afraid you just look silly. As Stove has written, "in reading Dr. Dawkins I have often formed the impression that (in Wittgenstein's phrase) a certain picture holds him captive. A picture, namely, of an exceptionally vain author, or parent, or photographer, who delights in surrounding himself with his own writings, or children, or self-portraits. But genes (it can hardly be necessary to say) can no more be vain than they can be selfish. They cannot delight in the number of replicas that they make of themselves. They are not even intelligent enough, after all, to know when they have made a replica of themselves."

At this point, the Dawkins/ultra-Darwinian faithful will be anxious to argue that I've missed the simple elegance of the "selfish theory" by understanding "selfish" to actually mean selfish; and will want to tell me, as has Dawkins, about how genes and organisms are blessed by Natural Selection to the extent that they are `replicating machines.' But this is only a tautology, after all. Organisms more likely to survive and reproduce will probably prove to be more likely to have survived and have reproduced. Obviously yes, this is a true, important and relevant observation, but what has been `explained?' It is argued that a successful replicating machine produces as many "copies," or offspring, as it can. But do you know anyone who has had as many offspring as they CAN? Do you suppose that anyone ever has? If you don't think it's fair to use humans as an example here (Stove tears down this objection), then look at other examples in nature. The very large order Hymenoptera (roughly 18,000 species) includes many groups [of ants or bees] in which exceedingly few individuals reproduce; but Dawkins likes to point to dogs (Canidae) when he thinks they help him make his point (chapter 2 of The Blind Watchmaker, for example), so let's do that here. To a certain rather large extent, wolves (Canis lupus) live (hunt, eat, rear young, grow old, etc) in groups in which only the so-called `alpha' male and `alpha' female will reproduce with any regularity, while many, if not most, of the individuals in these packs will infrequently, rarely, or never reproduce (although they will devotedly help protect and feed the offspring of the "alpha" animals). At this point I suppose it is again necessary to appeal to "altruism" that isn't really altruism, or some other contorted excuse of the sociobiologists. And why not--theirs is a `theory' that, at least when given sufficient hindsight, must "explain" and "predict" EVERYTHING biological, even those `problems' that it obviously neither explains nor predicts! An obvious variation of Dawkins' (ultra-Darwinism's) "prediction" tawdriness is as follows: A baby bird screaming louder may prompt its parents to feed it more, which would obviously bestow a positive `selection value' on loud screaming; on the other hand, loud screaming uses up energy that a hungry chick may already be deficient in, and, it is more likely to attract predators, both of which would bestow a negative `selection value' on loud screaming. So the simple logic that tells us that `survival benefits' are always naturally selected while the opposite are always culled away, manages to easily predict that loud screaming is something that will be genetically rewarded (i.e., selected), AND that loud screaming is something that natural selection will slice away. All we have to do to determine which conflicting "prediction" to hold to, is to determine *at some later time* whether the screamer population is robust or has become extinct, and viola!, we will know which of our contradictory "predictions" we then observe to be `true'! Karl Popper must be `turning over in his grave!' A "theory" that can predict anything and everything actually predicts nothing (in physics, this is also the current dilemma of the "M-theory"/"brane-world" ideas, which, it is becoming increasingly apparent, will have to retreat from the optimistic status of physical `theory' and admit they are only `somewhat interesting ideas' or `non-testable conjectures,' since they inevitably "predict" anything and everything, they actually predict nothing). Asking an ultra-Darwinist/sociobiologist to define a means of falsifying his `theory' has been likened, by one philosopher, to "talking to a log."

How can such a poorly argued book have been such a smash hit? Some philosophers, i.e., R. Kimball, have offered interesting answers that speak more to psychology and perhaps the blinders of "group think" than to scientific method or critical rigor or logical coherence. "The devil made me do it," said Flip Wilson. "God made me do it," says the Calvinist. "It's the aliens from space," says the UFO abductees enthusiast. "It's the evil spirits," says the demonologist. "It's `the stars'," says the astrologist. "It's a shadow," or "it's the bad blood," say the shamanist and the occultist. `Scientific' types presume to look down their noses at such things of course. But do they? It seems that certain popular forms of biological reductionism need puppetry too. Dawkins entered a market yearning for a would-be "scientific" puppet master and supplied the 'fix'. He has artfully tapped the supposedly more sophisticated "puppetry theory" audience. "It's the `selfish gene', yah, that's what it is." And the audience raucously screamed "Hooray!"

Back to /sci/ please

>>6
u makea me

as any philosopher he offers a way to think and not some bare facts. he says something like 'huh, animals live to have offspring and their offspring live to have offspring, it's a chain which passes genetic information to the future, we can think of it as of the selfish gene', he just took some known facts and offered such way to look at them, here

>The implicit teleology in the book (the goal is the replication of the gene, the organism merely the vehicle) would, in terms of the efficiency requirement in natural selection, create a situation where more complex organisms are inherently less efficient at the fundamental goal. So with that teleology there would be no increase in complexity through the natural selection Dawkins is at pains to protect as the driving force of evolution.

you argue not with dawkins but with the evolution theory. i guess you don't understand evolution theory though. evolution has no goals. it doesn't 'value' more complex organisms higher. organisms just changes randomly due to mutation pressure and those who don't fit the environment don't have offspring. multicellular organisms can thrive on single-celled organisms so they exist. single-celled organisms can have offspring more easily so they exist too. every organism which exist have some reason why

>>8
Dawkins is a not a philosopher.

>>9
Xarn is not a philosophical critic

Totally agree with you, OP.

>>9
yes he is. philosopher isn't a profession or degree, everybody who write books like that is one

https://boards.4chan.org/sci/

>>12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

You must be a retarded STEM fuck.

>>14
you don't even link the right page
you should of linked philosopher page

>>15
whatever

DAWKINS IS NOT A PHILOSOPHER AND THAT IS FINAL! HE IS NOT A KANT! NOT A HEGEL! NOT A PLATO! NOT A PHILOSOPHER! DEAL WITH IT KID FUCK HIS SELFISH GENE BULLSHIT TOO

Dawkins works for the Jews.

>>14
you must be a retarded illogical fuck.

>>17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Dawkins_Richard.html
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term meme.
Jew by Halakha. His mother was Jean Mary Vyvyan Dawkins (nee Ladner). Ladner is a Jewish (Ashkenazic) occupational name for a shopkeeper, from a derivative of Laden 'shop'. Dawkins is a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. British Humanist Association committed to human rights, democracy, egalitarianis. The Brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote equal civil rights and acceptance for people who hold a naturalistic worldview. Dawkins cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign. Dawkins describes himself as "a deeply religious non-believer" and calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion."

>>19
calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion."
Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family and had a lifelong respect for his Jewish heritage. Around the time Einstein was eleven years old he went through an intense religious phase, during which he followed Jewish religious precepts in detail, including abstaining from eating pork. He composed several songs in honor of God. Einstein's Jewish background and upbringing were significant to him, and his Jewish identity was strong, increasingly so as he grew older. Einstein was opposed to atheism. The simple appellation "agnostic" may not be entirely accurate, given his many expressions of belief in a Spinozan concept of Deity. It is accurate enough to call his religious affiliation "Jewish," with the understanding of the variety encompassed by such a label. Einstein had a positive attitude toward religion. He wrote of his belief in a noble "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quotes on the subject of science and religion is: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in 'Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.' This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.' Einstein's famous epithet on the 'uncertainty principle' was 'God does not play dice.'"

JEWS

>>18
Philosophy invented logic you dumb atheist KIKE

>>22
yes, and now logic spits on philosophy and on dumb illogical goyim such as yourself

>>22
atheist KIKE
I sniggered like a NIGGER.

>>23
New-atheist sciencetism retard detected.
Philosophic is harder than every science other than pure mathematics and theoretical physics (which aren't really sciences because they don't rely on simple bullshit such as HURR MUH OBSERVABLE EXPERIMENTS)

get wrecked

Logic is a social construct.

>>25
Oh, look, somebody took an intro to philosophy course and now believes he is superior to all the STEM mongrels. That's, of course, true, but not as much as you think.

>>25,27
fuck off and die in a fire, illogical racist cretins

>>28
Kiddo, stop calling people ``illogical'' when you merely mean that they are wrong.

>>25
Philosophic is harder than every science
What. It's just more important, and fundamentally more ``general'', but not harder. You don't solve P = NP just by smoking weed, but smoking weed can shed some light to solve a dilemma.

HURR MUH OBSERVABLE EXPERIMENTS
How about you fuck off back to the ima/g/ereddit you learned that ``meme'' from?

>>29
let him be, he's a french snail

>>30
>> You don't solve P = NP just by smoking weed, but smoking weed can shed some light to solve a dilemma.

Your ignorance of philosophy is showing.

Please read hegel and hume sad then come back to me.

it makes philosophy less annoying

>>32
Fat faggot with too much free time.

>34
>post on /prog/ all day
>calls me the fat faggot with too much free time

So much for atheists being for "freethought"

>it's only free when it suits me!

>>30,32,34
Shut the fuck up, faggots. You both wouldn't be using a computer if it weren't for exact sciences, and you would be living in a land full of niggers if it weren't for philosophy.

Both are hard in their own way, one requiring too much analytic thinking and the other requiring too much creativity.

>>35
I was calling Hegel a fat faggot, you overly defensive piece of shit. I'm not an Atheist, I'm Muslim you fucking faggot.

I thought I had told you to fuck off back to /g/ already. Fuck off with your e/g/in ``quotes'' and go post some random memes there.

>>35
who in the godliving FUCK are you quoting, /g/ shitstain?

>>35
Please don't misuse the quoting function, as nobody has said such thing in this thread. Quotes are meant to be used when you want to recreate something that has been said.

>>26
HAHAHA HE HASN'T HEARD OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY

ALSO IT'S FUNNY HOW IT'S THE CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHISES ARE THE MOST ATHEIST



>>37

ALLAH AKBAR

>>38
SHALOM! KIKE!

>>40
The reverse is also true (to an extent), meaning exact sciences need creativity (how do you come up with proofs for fucked up theorems then) and philosophy needing analytical thinking (you just gave an example).

I love parentheses.

huh, looks like i should of used the word 'thinker' so these 'i was told by my teacher and now i know who is philosopher, it's those guys from my textbook, also my teacher and other guys with masters degree in philosophy' would have been quiet

I got dubs!

>>43
No, you don't.

I got dubs!

Prrrrrrretty sure this entire thread is a creationist troll.

You just fell for the trap, guys.

The trap.

>>46
selfish gene is still stupid bullshit new-atheist tard

>disagree with me and ur a creationist !

>>47
>disagree with me and ur a new-atheist tard

disagree with me, i dare you

>>49
time to sleep, reductionist-kun

fucking reductionists

why don't you come on over here and reduce my anus

Reductionism FTW! Up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons!

JEWISH CONSPIRACY

qwakins

>>52
being a dumbass pop-sci reading faggot FTW!

>>55
faggot
/polecat kebabs/