Monday, 4 August 2008

The Genius of Richard Dawkins?

Given how time-consuming experimental science is, how much, if any, does Richard Dawkins actually do? When, if ever, did he last publish a strictly scientific book, or even a strictly scientific paper? I only ask.
Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous4 August 2008 at 17:03

    What do you mean by "strictly scientific"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay4 August 2008 at 17:06

    Well, when did he last publish anything on, say, molecular biology, in a journal of molecular biology, with footnotes and a bibliography?

    Since receiving his PhD, which must be nearly 40 years old now, has he ever done so? Did he ever even do so as a doctoral candidate?

    As I say, I only ask.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4 August 2008 at 17:08

    Why molecular biology? I don't think that's his specialism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay4 August 2008 at 17:11

    Well, whatever is, then.

    Which is rather my point. What IS his field as a scientist? His only apparent field is as a (completely incompetent) philosopher, theologian, and intellectual historian.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Darron S4 August 2008 at 19:24

    Did you really make a blog post asking a question that you could have answered yourself in 3 seconds using google?

    And who said Richard Dawkins is a genius? Did you misread the title of his new show, "The Genius of Charles Darwin", and accidentally transpose in Dawkins?

    ReplyDelete
  6. TonyTheProf5 August 2008 at 12:36

    As far as I can determine, when i studied that - a long time ago back in the 1980s, with possibly a few that might scape through in the early 1990s. Interestingly Michael Shermer did a study of Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould and both published popular and scientific papers (in academic scientific journals) right up to their deaths.

    For Dawkins, see
    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/biblio.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Lindsay5 August 2008 at 14:51

    Well, Dawkins says that Dawkins is a genius, for a start.

    And it is always worth pointing out that, like every other living scientist, he doesn't actually agree with Darwin about anything specifically scientific.

    His agreement is on the philosophical point of "the survival of the fittest", which has nothing to do with science and is dismissed out of hand as an obvious tautology by every competent philosopher.

    If you don't believe me, then ask A C Grayling - I first gained this insight from a book edited by him, although I have since come across it all over the place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5 August 2008 at 15:35

    To be more accurate, his agreement with Darwin is on the philosophical and empirical point of "natural selection", which has plenty to do with science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Lindsay5 August 2008 at 15:42

    No, it isn't. And no, it doesn't.

    Evolution is observable. "Natural selection" isn't. It is an unfalsifiable philosophical assertion, tautologous in its own terms.

    Selection of what? Selection from what? Selection how? Give the standard answers to those questions and the tautology is obvious.

    As any philosopher, militant atheists included, will tell you.

    One really would have thought that this whole notion had done enough damage in the twentieth century that no one would pay any attention to it any more, and instead concentrate on what can actually be observed, for its own sake and for all its interest and beauty.

    But apparently not. Richard Dawkins and his ilk must be "the fittest". And it must be "scientific" to say so, and thus "unscientific" to deny or question it.

    Just when did scientists become professional historical illiterates? Around the time that historians became professional scientific illiterates, I suppose.

    It was not ever thus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5 August 2008 at 15:52

    There's a good response to the "it's a tautology" claim here - a good source of rebuttals to anti-evolutionist claims in general. You might find it more useful to go there and read up on things than to ask simple questions here.

    Is the claim that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success a tautology? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Lindsay5 August 2008 at 15:58

    No, but that isn't the point. This isn't about evolution as such. Or science at all, in fact.

    Unless you really do subscribe to the Dawkinsite line that "anything Dawkins says is science". As distinct from the fact of the matter, "barely anything that Dawkins has ever said has been science".

    Oh dear, someone has dared to suggest that you might not be "the fittest" after all...

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)