Talk:The Selfish Gene/Archive 1

message: I'm not a biologist but I read up a bit on this.  Neither the Wikipedia article or any of the items I read support the position that a Segregation Distortion gene is bad for the host.  Anyone want to explain why this is the case (assuming it is true)?  If it is not true let's remove it from the article.  Robertbrockway 18:49 May 22, 2005 (UTC)
*I've never seen segregation distortion arise in any context other than as very bad genetic disorders, but I'm no biologist either.  Your clearly correct that they don't *inherently* harm the animal; getting all your mitochondria from your mother isn't bad for you.  However, it is true that selection pressures act diffrently on any genetic material which cheats, so its much easier for such material to become a disorder.  I've seen people suggest that mitochondrial DNA probably does try to bias towards female children, but that presumably germ line DNA just fights back & is much more powerful.  I've also seen people suggest geneticallly engenering segregation disorders to destroy various populations of pests, say by creating a Y chromosome for a pest which ensured that all sperm would contain the Y, release it into the wild, and watch the species drift towards extinction. - JeffBurdges 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation Distortion 

message: I removed the following sentence from the article:
:Another criticism of the book is that it attempts to answer philosophical and moral questions that are beyond the scope of the biological arguments presented therein.
First, this sentence not only asserts that the criticism is made, but also that it is valid (in my reading at least). Second, I don't believe that this is a frequent criticism of the book, though I'm open to being corrected. So I'd be happy to see a similar statement included if someone could cite a published criticim using this argument, and reword the assertion to make it clear that the article neither supports nor opposes it. —Rory ☺ 00:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
---
Lots of critiques are based on Dawkins' philosophical conclusions. For example,
and indeed anything by Mary Midgeley (even though she is a bit too verbose) e.g.
sure I can find a lot more people if you need more examples that this is a common criticism. I'd also be surprised to find a philosopher who would believe that it is not valid to criticise somebody for using science to make moral judgements. In fact Dawkins often goes to great pains to refute this by appealing against religion - but this is a straw man imho.
cheers, Brendanurbanwarrior 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Brendanurbanwarrior that it's a fairly common criticim of Dawkins, so I've readded the sentence, with a link to Mary Midgley. I've changed the wording of the sentence slightly, so I hope that you think it's NPOV- obviously feel free to change it, but I think it needs to be kept in the article. --G Rutter 21:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: First, the intelligent design movement internal-ish propoganda quite clearly claims that science like evolution is weakening the moral fiber of the nation.  Seems quite clearly parallel to Midgley's critisism.   Actually it seems *more* thought out than Midgley's critisism, although also more incorrect.  Second, I'm not sure I really grasp the point where Dawkins gets into "moral implications".  Yes, many people object tot he fact that he "used the word selfish and had to dig himself out of a hole."  Is that what you mean?  His other major foray into philosophical thought is that understanding the selfish replicators, and the iterated prisoner's dilemma, is necissary if you want to correct flaws in human society.  This idea comes with an extremely high pedigree from serious philosophers, read A Darwinian Left by Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton.  - JeffBurdges 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidence for your first sentence?  It quite clearly is not parallel to Midgley's criticism, as you'd know if you had read any of her books.  She's very strongly pro-science, but not in favour of scientists making philosophical claims they don't have any grounds for (it's a pity she doesn't take her own advice sometimes, as her own knowledge of science is woefully poor in some areas).  Much of Beast and Man (published in 1980) anticipates Singer's call for a left which takes Darwinian reality into account.  Regarding Dawkins, here is a Desert Island Discs transcript in which he says much the same thing as he does in the introduction to TSG - "You can expect no help from biological nature if you want to be nice and unselfish and generous so we have got to work at being nice, unselfish and generous."  Now he's spent half of the last quarter-century saying that sort of thing (which goes directly against all the work that has been done on game theory, some of which was reported in TSG and more particularly in The Extended Phenotype), and the other half denying that he has ever said that sort of thing.  Here's the Wikipedia article: "Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms."  See the problem?  Where Midgley is spot-on is in identifying this as a conceptual problem with reductionism - things do work differently at different levels, and you have to be extraordinarily careful if you're using the same word to describe different concepts at different levels of organisation.  Dawkins says "genes don't act altruistically towards other genes, so organisms don't naturally act altruistically towards other organisms".  Then he says "I never said that".  --ajn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, they even call it the wedge strategy.  I didn't mean parallel in terms of positive/negative views of science, but on wanting it out of philosophy, but I see your point, she doesn't want it out, she just doesn't want philosophy treated naively.  I never really bought "how" Dawkins phrased that stuff about being nice, unselfish, etc., but I always took "we have to work at being nice" to mean, "we have to figure out how to change the game to keep human nature in check".  What else could it mean if your talking about using the IPD to create positive social change (as I believe Dawkins does)?  - JeffBurdges 20:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "philosophical and moral questions" 

message: I read through these comments and implemented some of the contents changes, plus some of my own, and a bunch of language fixes.  Mostly, I tried to add some examples and tone down the NPOV portions and unsupported claims.  If you have comments about the content changes, it's probably safer to make them here before doing any heavy edits. Alienus 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes as per comments 

message: Andrew Norman, You have reverted two of my constructive edits, claimed you would justify them on the talk page, and did not do so.  Please explain?  I'm willing to discuss whether ID should be mentioned around Mary Midgley, but your flat wrong and have not read the book if you think Dawkins "argued for" memetics.  At that point in the book, he was quite clearly only making conjecture, and not even claiming to believe it himself.  - JeffBurdges 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did justify the reversion, here and amended here.  You could try checking the talk page history before flinging these accusations around.  I've read the book several times, thanks.  I've no quarrel with toning down the discussion of memes (though my recollection is that he's at best ambiguous about whether memes could be explained by a "selfish" theory).  Your point about conjecture is interesting, as it's one of Midgley's criticisms of Dawkins and others - a book of solid science, bookended by conjecture and claims which go beyond the arguments as presented, and it's the lurid conjecture which lay readers pick up on as the important ideas, not the science.  --ajn (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I'll respond about to that one.  Dawkins conjecture about memes is literally "genes may not be the only selfish replicatiors, ideas may be self replicatiors too," and follows the section on another replicator being responcible for the creation of life.  So, yes, it is definitely about a selfish theory.  Its as a negative conjecture about excessive gJKJKJenetic exuberance, which is a valid warning to scientists, and need not be taken to have any philosophical content.  - JeffBurdges 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN's revert 

message: The iterated prisoner's dilemma clearly diserves mention in the 2nd to last paragraph, as it is a major theme of the non-Dawkins philosophical thought which ID and M.M. attacking Dawkins over.  I vaguely recall it also being mentioned in the book, in the same hopeful (vaguely pro-but-post Marxist) light where its mentioned everywhere. - JeffBurdges 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In my last change, I hinted towards the IPD in mentioning that selfish genes can lead to altruistic organisms, but I never did spell out how iteration leads to a more optimial solution to the PD.  Someone should do it.  If necessarily, I'll give it a try, but I'd like to step back from this topic for a bit to let others contribute.  I've liked the changes made since mine. Alienus 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iterated prisoner's dilemma 

message: From Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0192860925; p. 276—Brains and Computers. 
::Note to p. 49 Brains may be regarded as analogous in function to computers. They are analogous in that both types of machines generate complex patterns of output, after analysis of complex patterns of input , and after reference to stored information. 
:Statements like this worry literal-minded critics. They are right, of course, that brains differ in many respects from computers. Their internal methods of working, for instance, happen to be very different from the particular kind of computers that our technology has developed. This in no way reduces the truth of my statement about their being analogous in function. Functionally, the brain plays precisely the role of on-board computer—data processing, pattern recognition, short-term and long-term data storage, operation coordination, and so on.
Yesselman 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brains and Computers 

message: I split the article into secitons to try and make it a little easier to digest when reading. I think the article as it stands is very well written - bravo to the editors! I have read the book and am a great fan, and overall the article represents it well.
My one, if only gripe would be that there is a great deal of explanation given to the criticisms of the book, but not really any mention of the book's popularity. I'd like to see, for instance that it has sold more than a million copies and been translated into over 25 languages - I think that would give the layman a better idea of the impact the book originally made 30 years ago? Thoughts, please! Thanks. Mushintalk 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody replied, so I've carried out the edits myself. Mushintalk 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added headers into the article, and a comment 

message: I've removed the "seminal" addition - Dawkins himself admits in the book that most of what's in it came from Williams, Hamilton and others.  It's a popularisation and summary, not a piece of wholly original theory (which doesn't mean it's a bad book, far from it - but The Extended Phenotype is more about Dawkins's own ideas).  The article probably needs to make that plainer.  --ajn (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Blind Watchmaker now, that has more of a claim, although again Dawkins reasonably drew on the shoulders of giants to produce it.  Origin of Species, the sequel.  Midgley 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminal? 

message: The article Unit of selection seems to have major Gould? POV inspired errors, conflaits individual & gene level selection, etc.  JeffBurdges 11:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an older more correct vresion, but its also very short, and significantly overstated Dawkins contributions.  JeffBurdges 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unit of selection]] 

message: I've removed a brief paragraph about a band from Madison, WI named The Selfish Gene (after this book). I don't believe they are of more than local interest - please see WP:MUSIC. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Mushintalk 00:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed info about band 

message: I changed the wording in the title section to  
Although accepted by biologists as somewhat mainstream now, it was considered quite controversial when it was first published in 1976.
The original version stated that it is a somewhat controversial book.
This has now been changed back.
Most biology and evolutionary books can be considered controversial to at least some people, specifically religious people. But in terms of the The Selfish Gene when it was first published the relevant (to evolution/biology)aspect of it’s controversy was that it promoted a gene-centric view of evolution during a time when thinking in this field was dominated by individual and group selection arguments.
However as Dawkins' arguments are no longer new and have been integrated into current evloutionary boiology (most evolutionists now think in terms of a combination of individual, kin and group selection in with a view to how they are affected by genes) I don't think it's fair to say the book IS a very controversial one.
Thus my revision made clear that what WAS a controversial theory when it was first published is now considered less so.
Whereas the original merely states the book IS controversial without saying who it's controversial to and why. - GB
80.195.35.180 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that selfish gene theory should not really be considered controversial any more, but the fact remains that it does still arouse controversy all these years on. Thank you for your input. Laurence Boyce 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence