Most Helpful Customer Reviews
60 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Reflections on a major biological thinker of our time, April 25, 2006
This review is from: Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and Philosophers (Hardcover)
The subtitle of this book, "how a scientist changed the way we think", is entirely justified: Richard Dawkins really did. Even people who thought they understood evolutionary theory quite well found that they had to rethink it all when The Selfish Gene appeared 30 years ago. Not all biologists agreed with his message, of course, Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin being well known as opponents, but many of them did, and even when they did not agree with everything they still agreed with a great deal. Patrick Bateson provides one of the most interesting contributions to this book, in which he explains that he continues to disagree with Dawkins about some details, but he says, rightly, that "those who hope for bloody gladiatorial contests are disappointed when they discover that the circles of our interests and beliefs overlap much more extensively than they had believed".
Inevitably in a multi-author book, the contributions are variable in quality and interest, and as many of the authors have written elsewhere on similar themes they have comparatively little that is new or surprising to say here. Anyone who has read Dawkins's own books is likely to be familiar with at least some of the works of Helena Cronin, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker and Michael Ruse, for example. Among these four, Pinker's chapter is especially disappointing -- readers who have been entranced by his brilliant and witty writing in other books will find little trace of it here, though the actual content of what he says is unexceptionable. The chapter by the Bishop of Oxford is interesting mainly because it is there, but it will not convince many readers that he has a viable answer to Dawkins's atheism.
Of the other chapters, the one that I enjoyed the most was probably that of Marian Stamp Dawkins, who describes The Selfish Gene as the most important teaching aid she has ever come across. Just so. In setting out to explain the appeal of the book, Matt Ridley makes the valuable point that it is almost unique in the history of scientific writing: beforehand "scientists wrote books for each other, or for laymen, but rarely for both". Dawkins, however, was concerned not only to explain biology to non-biologists but also to argue with his colleagues at the same time. Therein lies much of the greatness of his book.
In summary, this book is worth reading, but it does not really do justice to its subject, and does not have many strikingly novel things to say.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
42 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not just a cheering section, June 11, 2006
This review is from: Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and Philosophers (Hardcover)
If Darwin's revelation of natural selection is "the best idea anyone, any where, ever had", then Richard Dawkins' identification of the "selfish gene" must run a close second. While Darwin's concept explained the workings of life, Dawkins' insight disclosed the mechanism of natural selection. The 1976 publication of "The Selfish Gene" not only stimulated a fresh wave of thinking among biologists, it also stirred public interest and imagination. If life was under the thrall of those strings of chemicals in our cells, how far did that influence reach? In this set of excellent essays on the issues, Dawkins ideas and their impact are presented and discussed. The fruit of his insights are bittersweet, and while most of these writings applaud his probity and communication skills, there is the tang of doubt about some of them.
More than two dozen essays comprise this collection. They are topically organised, starting with the biology issues, moving through the logic Dawkins uses to his writing skills. Today, the biology seems straightforward: genes build bodies. Those bodies contain nervous systems and brains - the root of behaviours. At the publication of "The Selfish Gene", it was widely thought that evolution worked at the species' level. Dawkins moved that mechanism much deeper. Its effect is manifested through various ways, with mate choice one of the more significant. Andrew Read explains how evolutionary pressure forces such practices as "lekking" in certain bird species. The mechanism can be readily projected to other creatures, and is manifested in humans, as well.
The "selfish gene" operating in humans has, of course, caused the greatest distress among many readers. An entire section of the book is devoted to that issue. Randolph Nesse discusses how the term "selfish" has been mindlessly condemned by many. Adding to the furor, and fury, was the publication of Edward O. Wilson's "Sociobiology". Although Wilson's book focussed on social species, particularly insects, the implications were clear. If genes build bodies and guide behaviour, how many of our activities are similarly directed? How many of our actions are "genetically determined". Nesse notes that Dawkins had closed his book saying we are the one species capable of overriding our genes' guidance, few either read or failed to comprehend the implications.
Outside the realm of pure biology, Dawkins has made clear his position on religion and its dogmas. No less a figure than the Bishop of Oxford takes up the challenge. In his essay on Dawkins and humanism, Richard Harries deals with what drives a person to atheism. Noting other powerful scholars have turned away from "faith". He exempts science itself as a cause, instead Harries relies on Alister McGrath's recent book, "Dawkins' God" as a buttress. Harries sympathises with Dawkins sense of awe at the wonders of the universe. Harries, of course, wishes Dawkins' awe could be "grounded in a reality that lies beyond the visible universe".
The concluding essays focus on Dawkins' writing skills. That talent is universally exclaimed throughout the set, but Matt Ridley and Philip Pullman go beyond merely addressing Dawkins ability to impart science. Pullman, in particular, finds elements of Dawkins' prose that should appeal to all readers, notably "phrase-making" and humour. Making readers smile is a rare trait among science writers, but Dawkins has managed to Pullman's satisfaction and delight. He even compares Dawkins with Dickens, no small compliment. It is a fitting cap to this collection - a tribute well deserved by its subject. Having read "Selfish Gene" some time ago, this collection impels me to take up its insights and delightful reading once more. As these writers stress, Dawkins is a thought-stimulator par excellence. We need more like him. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
71 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
I had not realized how important Dawkins was, April 13, 2006
This review is from: Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and Philosophers (Hardcover)
until reading assessments of his contribution to modern thought by the writers I most esteem: Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Matt Ridley.
Dawkins' ability to express himself clearly leads to the deceptive conclusion that he is a popularizer rather than an innovator in science. Wrong. While he draws from the great streams of scientific thought, he has woven ideas together into several constellations that are his alone.
I had thought, reading Dennett's rather dense but delightful "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" that Dawkins was his disciple. Wrong again - other way around.
Each of these 24 authors refer to their subject as "Richard," somewhat familiarly but also with some reverence, as if "Richard" were a prefix for something such as "The Sixth" or "of Cambridge"
Most interesting and awkward of the articles was one by the Bishop of Oxford attempting to grapple with Dawkins' oft-expressed atheism and his belief that religion is a virus of the mind. Quite in contrast with Dawkins' work, I could not make heads or tails of this attempted reconciliation, which seemed to say no more than that he is a decent fellow despite his disbelief.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
