Comments on: Conclusive evidence for ‘Selfish Gene’ theory found.

By: Shwan

Shwan — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:39:30 +0000

Dear Steve Davis,
I find Dawkins argument very compelling. You need consider the points in the argument rather than see what others think. It says that the only replicators are the genes; that the unit of selection is also gene because all other entities, individuals, groups are ephermeral. These are simple facts and you cannot escape them. The rest of his Dawkins’s work is the articulation of the implication of these simple facts. I write this to see you response.
Simian please let me know when Steve answers, and thanks.

By: Steve Davis

Steve Davis — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:19:10 +0000

Hi Simian, sorry I’ve taken so long to reply.
Don’t get me wrong, I see no problem with investigating selfish gene theory, it’s Dawkins presentation of it that worries me.
Non-scientific theorising has been defined as follows, (from Wikipedia I think) untestable claims, reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing, personalisation of issues and the use of misleading language. The only one to which he can claim “not guilty” would be lack of openess to testing as far as I know. His survival machine is untestable, he relies heavily on confirmation when for every example of selfishness an example of unselfishness can be found, he personalises debate as in his recent unprofessional treatment of Freeman Dyson, and his “selfish gene” is deliberately misleading despite his protests to the contrary. He claims that he uses the word in a technical sense but a careful reading of the book shows this is not the case.
Dawkins did put science on high throttle as you suggest, but was that in reverse? A whole generation of biologists has grown up thinking that selfish gene theory as presented by Dawkins is serious science, even scientific orthodoxy, when in fact numerous scientists of greater repute and achievement than Dawkins do not accept his work. His success is due to his popularisation of biology, his journalistic skills, not for the fact that he advanced human knowledge. His work on memes is far more substantial, and will endure I believe, but this is more in the field of sociology rather than science. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the matter. Steve

By: simian

simian — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:28:31 +0000

Steve, that’s kind of like when people argue that Darwin was not justified in proposing the theory of evolution by natural selection because he didn’t know about DNA or Mendelian genetics. Your dig at the selfish gene here falls pretty well short of moving me. If not for selfish genes, how do you explain kin altruism or reproductive altruism (as I discussed in this post)? Dawkins himself presented very compelling evidence, but that does not need to stand on its own. Thousands of papers on biology and other evolution-related topics have cited Dawkins as a leading expert and incorporated the gene’s eye view of natural selection into their theoretical frameworks. Dawkins put biological science on high throttle, and look at what’s happened to it in the last three decades! You can say you don’t like the survival machine metaphor if you like, but you’re dead wrong on the testability and falsifiability thing.

By: Steve Davis

Steve Davis — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:32:10 +0000

No matter how significant this discovery turns out to be, it will not confirm the basis of The Selfish Gene. The evidence Dawkins gives fails to meet the standards of the scientific method, or of Popper’s standards of testability and falsifiability. His “survival machine” is no more than an opinion.