Richard Dawkins: Difference between revisions

Critics of Dawkins's biological approach suggest that taking the [[gene]] as the unit of ''selection'' (a single event in which an individual either succeeds or fails to reproduce) is misleading. The gene could be better described, they say, as a unit of ''evolution'' (the long-term changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population).<ref>{{cite book |last=Dover |first=Gabriel |title=Dear Mr Darwin |year=2000 |publisher=London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson |isbn=978-0-7538-1127-6}}</ref> In ''The Selfish Gene'', Dawkins explains that he is using [[George C. Williams (biologist)|George C. Williams]]'s definition of the gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency".<ref>{{cite book |last=Williams |first=George C. |title=Adaptation and Natural Selection |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C |year=1966 |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=New Jersey |isbn=978-0-691-02615-2 |access-date=20 May 2020 |archive-date=23 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200523013348/https://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C |url-status=live }}</ref> Another common objection is that a gene cannot survive alone, but must cooperate with other genes to build an individual, and therefore a gene cannot be an independent "unit".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mayr |first=Ernst |author-link=Ernst Mayr |title=What Evolution Is |year=2000 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0-465-04426-9}}</ref> In ''The Extended Phenotype'', Dawkins suggests that from an individual gene's viewpoint, all other genes are part of the environment to which it is adapted.

 

 

In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'),<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref> one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]], reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas.<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}}</ref> In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over [[sociobiology]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are [[Steven Pinker]] and [[Daniel Dennett]]; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended [[reductionism]] in biology.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |department=Reviews: books and software |pages=32–36|year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-0526%28199609/10%292%3A1%3C32%3A%3AAID-CPLX8%3E3.0.CO%3B2-H }} {{free access}}</ref> Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'' posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.