Customer Reviews

Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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]

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.

As usual I found myself wondering around the science section of a local bookstore. I tried to convince myself that I should finish reading one of the seven books by my bed before spending anymore of my, rent, money. After browsing the covers of numerous books, I was just `looking', one caught my eye. A very visible font read: "Richard Dawkins". I picked it up assuming, wrongly so, that this was Dawkins biography. I usually have a habit of reading the preface of the book I have my eye on, this time I went straight to the register. I started reading the book in the car when I walked out of the bookstore. Two days after, of non-stop reading, I have just put it down.

The book is a collection of essays from a wide range of fields including biologists, writers and philosophers. They all describe the ways in which Dawkins has affected their academic life, field of study or the effects of his books, mostly the selfish gene, on the way we think of evolution. The first section, titled `Biology', is a collection of essays describing how the genes eye view of evolution is sculpturing their research and how Dawkins's explanation had shed a new light on evolution that continues to this day.
The sections titled `The Selfish Gene" addresses this now infamous book and its impact on humanity, the view of culture (through Memes) and arguments for a reductionism approach when dealing with human behavior. The next three sections (Logic, Antiphonal Voices and Humans) contain essays that continue the Selfish gene theme and address the impact of Dawkins writing on some fundamental human questions. The sections titled `Controversy' reviews the most controversial side of Dawkins, the Dawkins that is never afraid to be straight forward when attacking religious dogma and promoting atheism. Finally the section on `Writing' sums up this book perfectly. In the midst of all the controversy and scientific arguments it is not difficult to forget that Dawkins is truly mesmerizing with words. The two essays in this section sum up his writing technique and perhaps clarify why even those who don't agree with his views are so captivated by his books.

If you are a fan of Dawkins, or even if you are not, this is a must have.

This is a very powerful book.
Edited by two former students of Dawkins at Oxford, and now renowned biologists on their own, Alan Grafen and Mark Ridley, this book collect some 25 essays that are meant to celebrate teh 30th anniversary of the first edition of "The Selfish Gene", the book that originally propelled Dawkins to fame.
Although most contributors are close and friendly to the scientist, whose work they are celebrating here, some of them are among his critics, and one of them is the Bishop of Oxford.
The book is a useful re-statement of some of the basic views of contemporary evolutionary biology, ie. of 21st century Darwinism, and inevitably this will make it an important tool in the struggle for science and against obscurantism, which is being waged all over the planet nowadays.

If you have read Richard's books over the years, you will enjoy reading some other prominent peoples' opinions. I am now re-reading "The selfish gene"

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. Because he writes so clearly, his colleagues and students learn from him with ease; because he writes so entertainingly, they thoroughly enjoy the learning process. In Grafen and Ridley's compendium, other scientists who have benefited from Dawkins' brilliance build on his work, and provide important commentary and instruction on how to think and reason.

I particularly applaud Ruse's statement -- contrary to the position of such nonsensical alternative medicine systems as 'naturopathy' -- that vitalism is profoundly nonscientific, per:

"vital forces really have no place in science [p.157]."

-r.c.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most well-known scientists and public intellectuals in the world. His most important idea is that the mechanism of Evolution works at the level of genes, and not primarily at the species level. This anthology contains work by a number of those who claim to have benefited from his idea, and extended into other realms of investigation. There are essays on Dawkins work and its influence in scientific areas outside of Biology. There is also a set of essays by his critics, and essays of tribute on Dawkins as a writer. He is celebrated not only for being a superb stylist, but also according to Matt Ridley, one of the editors of the Anthology, for writing books which actually address scientific issues of weight and moment while at the same time speaking to a general public. He is not that is simply a popularizer, or one who provides summaries of previous work.
Dawkins scientific reputation is however clearly most dependent on 'The Selfish Gene' work. I am not qualified to evaluate the Selfish Gene idea especially as I am not sure I truly understand it. My only comment however would be that it seems to me a 'reductionist idea' which most likely does not explain what happens in the 'other worlds' of higher complexity where new systems of rules ordinarily operate.
Of course my major reservation regarding Dawkins has nothing to do with his work as a Scientist but rather from his using his Scientific reputation to make pseudo- metaphysical claims. While understanding Dawkins objections to cruel manifestations of organized religion I find his behavior in the whole question of Religion, reprehensible. After all a scientific view of the world cannot provide for the vast majority of mankind the kind of meaning and justification which a religious view can. Why is Dawkins so concerned to 'prove ' to others their folly when he of course cannot prove by scientific means what he claims?

Much Darwin and Dawkins hero worship here. An extremely tedious book. Daniel Dennett perhaps makes the most interesting contribution. He declares that he was "a committed Darwinian before I got around to reading The Selfish Gene." He does not define the word "Darwinian". Anyway, he defines the "pre-Darwinian world" as "the trickle-down vision in which all Design must come from a greater, higher Mind, instead of bubbling up from mindless, motiveless mechanisms." Dennett seems unaware that Darwin was a Unitarian Christian, a theist who believed in a "First Cause" who makes reference to "the Creator" in his books. Dennett starts one strange sentence with an ultimatum: "THIS is the fundamental truth of Darwinism, and, as I have tried to show in my own work, there are no stable intermediate positions; either you shun Darwinism evolution altogether and cling to an Aristotelian or Abrahamic vision of God as Prime Mover or Creator, or you turn that traditional universe upside down ..."

Trouble is, no-one admits that Darwinian evolution closely resembles Lamarkian evolution and Buffonian evolution and granddad Erasmus Darwinian evolution. Robert Aunger notes, "Interestingly, Dawkins suggested that any process which showed design was likely to be due to the natural selection of random variants - a principle he called Universal Darwinism." That means nothing. If it shows design then it is Buffonian/Lamarckian evolution. Dennett appears unaware that natural selection only occurs as a means by which organisms thrive at the expense of other organisms; it is not a process of evolution.

Darwin's Origin of Species depicts a world at endless war. Darwin's and Dawkins' legacy seems to be that naturalists interpret natural phenomena as symptoms of warfare in nature. Andrew Read states how his PhD ws "mainly concerned with how infectious diseases might be responsible for the bizarre songs, colors and plumes of many male birds." Rather than appreciate beauty in nature, today's Dawkinsists interpret it in pathological terms.

Michael Shermer quotes Dawkins' assertion that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." In Descent of Man, Darwin declared, "The ideas of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man until he has been elevated by long-continued culture." Perhaps all the Dawkinsian contributors for this book should expose themselves to some culture and then they might realise that it might well be the case that Richard Dawkins did change the way we think... for the worse!