The reason Midgley was furious about Gene the Shellfish was that it described human beings as slaves to their genes. Such full biological determinism is eminently ideological -- it tells people that they are not free -- and it's an ideology with dark history (eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc.). — Olivier5

The reason Kenosha Kid here is willing to die on Dawkins hill is purely religious: Dawkins was an aggressive atheist, while his chief contradictor Gould was a benevolent agnostic who did not fancy attacking religion. — Olivier5

Clearly, wavefunctions represent waves, not particles as you insist from your interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no contemporary research — frank

That wasn't the question. — Saphsin

I disagree with Gould on NOMA, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology.
— Saphsin

Creationism implies a creator. — Kenosha Kid

When people say creationist, they don't mean lack of any belief in a religious God involved with the universe, they mean a belief system that rejects Evolution. — Saphsin

Saying that you need to be an atheist to also accept Evolution as scientific theory or else you're a creationist is a really high standard that I don't think works. — Saphsin

My position is the same as that of contemporary biology — frank

You are mistaken. — frank

Depends if they interfere with claims made by evolutionary theory. — Saphsin

This is an outdated view. As Banno mentioned, it dove-tailed nicely with some 19th and 20th century outlooks, but it never had empirical backing — frank

Explaining all behaviour in terms of selfish genetics strikes me as adopting the same logic. Even if it is right, it is shallow. — Banno

I have goldfish and chooks. — Banno

Perhaps that my caring for a cat that is not a close genetic match is a sort of peacock's tail - showing off my caring and supportive nature in order to impress potential mates. — Banno

It's a very old relationship. The theory was that wolves would naturally scavenge a bit around the settlements of early humans. Animals have a characteristic ethologists call "flight distance", how close you allow a possible threat to come before bolting. The idea is that wolves with a shorter flight distance would be the beginnings of domestication: humans come out to chase wolves away from the garbage dump, and one doesn't run off immediately but stays and gets a closer look, eventually leading to interaction, maybe deliberate feeding of that wolf by a human. — Srap Tasmaner

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad, that's not what most people think of as creationism — Saphsin

I'm not all that closely related to my cat, yet I feed it, even going out of my way to the pet shop to buy it a special diet recommended by the vet, at considerable expense.

How does evolution explain this? — Banno

So he isn't a creationist, even "obviously" in your words. So why say it? — Saphsin

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad — Saphsin

I mean I'm very inclined philosophically from looking at evolutionary history and the picture it shows that there is a tension between Evolutionary Biology and Theism, but people can hold onto both views without being a creationist, just like people hold onto all kinds of poorly compatible views. — Saphsin

I don't really understand you response. It doesn't seem to be based on my comments but just re-iterates your dislike of my view. Let;s leave it. I know when I'm beat. — FrancisRay

I disagree with Gould on NOMA, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology. — Saphsin

Wait, you're a Dawkins fan, you picked the name Kenosha Kid, and you've I explicably picked on orthodox Jews.

I see a banning in your future. — frank

I wasn't aware science had an explanation. It was not in that paper. — FrancisRay

I would rather say that the natural sciences have no method for studying or understanding empathy, but scientists like to speculate beyond the data. — FrancisRay

I have no beef with science or scientists, but I wish they'd be more careful to distinguish between what they can and cannot study with their methods. — FrancisRay

He was raised an orthodox Jew iirc — Kenosha Kid

I agree that Dawkin's influence shouldn't entirely be held against him. It's not his fault that while inspiring a generation, he was also embraced by neo-Nazis. — frank

I had a look at the paper but it doesn't appear to be relevant. . — FrancisRay

You are lying about Gould. That's pretty disgusting — Olivier5

Stop making a fool of yourself, please? — Olivier5

Altruism is grounded in empathy and it is this that has to be explained. — FrancisRay

LOL. You can't beat this place for entertainment. — Olivier5

Gould is branded as playing the leading role on Midgley's camp, and Dawkins as leading the other camp. — Olivier5

Then it seems to me that you are not a good reader, who mistakes a framing device - one explicitly authorized by the very source it critiques - for substance. — StreetlightX

locked in constant internecine competition, a war of all against all." — StreetlightX

I still don't follow. If genes behave 'as if' they had self-interest (that is, only metaphorically speaking), why would this have any bearing on our behaviour or our need to teach altruism? — coolazice

Not as easy as you might think. Perhaps consider a bladed weapon instead? 'The right tool for the job', I always say. — unenlightened

You've thought about everything haven't you? — bert1

She cuts to the quick after her small discussion of metaphor — StreetlightX

I already showed you how your thesis, which is a turning away from the vast array of evidence that energy is transmitted as waves, towards a theory which treats this transmission as a movement of particles, is a turn in the wrong direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I'll rattle off some examples when I do. — StreetlightX

In any case the question of 'metaphor' is a sideshow. — StreetlightX

He is obviously speaking about the behaviors of genes and animals. What else? The behaviors of lampposts? — Olivier5

I will never reveal such a thing, because it is not understood by anyone. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. 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

Not my problem that Dawkins is a shit comminutor and and even shitter science populariser. — StreetlightX

Thanks for looking this up and providing a link. It was excellent! — Srap Tasmaner

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

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

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