That touches on another problem with Midgley, which is that she dismisses the genetic theory of evolution on the basis that genes aren't propagated, only their likenesses. But, persuant to your question, a gene is identified as the type within a population, not the token within the individual. — Kenosha Kid
There is no such thing as a selfish gene.
— creativesoul
That is correct.
— Kenosha Kid — creativesoul
Though any criticism using anthropomorphism should lead us to wonder if there is any situation where positing such traits, even when describing 'us', isn't also a fallacy. IOW in the face of determinism and all the possible philosophical assaults on the sense of theire being an 'I' and persistant self and choice, etc.Yes, but that's just anthropomorphism. — Kenosha Kid
We are left to wonder how a gene could possibly "behave" in the first place, how it could possibly "behave" to increase another gene's "welfare", and even how it could possibly pay for the "expense". As for "the exact opposite" of altruism, what would that be? An entity that behaves to increase its own welfare at the expense of other entities' welfare? How would that happen in the case of a gene? The gene for cholinesterase tells the gene for hemoglobin to get lost because he's taking over it's locus? Or are we talking about alleles, mysteriously undermining the chances of other alleles present in other organisms? The whole conceptual framework is muddy and unhelpful.When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. We do not even mean the words in
a metaphorical sense. We define altruism and selfishness in purely behaviouristic ways: 'An entity . . . is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way
as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect.
He says "biologists use these words ("altruist", "selfish") in a special way, and then he fails to define the oh-so-special meaning he gives to them... — Olivier5
We are left to wonder how a gene could possibly "behave" in the first place, how it could possibly "behave" to increase another gene's "welfare", and even how it could possibly pay for the "expense". — Olivier5
You cannot have an altruistic gene if you define it the way he does, evidently. A gene can only replicate itself. It's not like it has the capacity to replicate a Mercedes-Benz instead.The point that you couldn't possibly have an "altruistic" gene is one I made quite a while ago. It doesn't make any sense. A selfish gene -- one that adapts to prolong itself -- is both viable and accurate. — Kenosha Kid
You cannot have an altruistic gene if you define it the way he does, evidently. A gene can only replicate itself. It's not like it has the capacity to replicate a Mercedes-Benz instead. — Olivier5
How did Dawkins set evolutionary theory back by decades? — fdrake
The whole conceptual framework is muddy and unhelpful. — Olivier5
I've read through Dawkins' response to Midgley (here). — Olivier5
He says himself it's not metaphoric use. It's some "special meanings" of selfish and altruist that he made up entirely, and that don't work. — Olivier5
One of the absolutely bonkers things about reading The Selfish Gene is just how much he has to consistently qualify just how useless and misleading it is to talk about genes in the way he does. — StreetlightX
Literally a third of the book is him self-correcting... — StreetlightX
Thanks for looking this up and providing a link. It was excellent! — Srap Tasmaner
He's not talking about genes in that quote, — Kenosha Kid
When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes.
Not my problem that Dawkins is a shit comminutor and and even shitter science populariser. — StreetlightX
He is. You are in denial.
When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. — Olivier5
Personally I see the value of the metaphor, it has good explanatory power as all good metaphors should. — Kenosha Kid
:up:It is incredibly muddled, and it obfuscates far more than it illuminates. — StreetlightX
should not have apologized for it. — StreetlightX
Apology is due, not only for the delay but for the impatient tone of my article. One should not lose one’s temper, and doing so always makes for confused argument. My basic objections remain. But I certainly ought to have expressed them more clearly and temperately. — Mary Midgley
Denial it is... So by your rather peculiar understanding of the English language, he is not talking of animals, human being or genes in that quote.. What IS he talking about then, according to you? — Olivier5
Hence why the book is filled with these 'paradoxes' which he then 'solves' which makes lay readers think he's some kind of genius, when in truth, they are puzzles of his own making forced on him by an inadequate conceptual apparatus. — StreetlightX
It's a rubbish metaphor and Midgley was right in her 'intemperance' — StreetlightX
He is obviously speaking about the behaviors of genes and animals. What else? The behaviors of lampposts?It doesn't require explaining — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.