(10-26-2013, 12:08 PM)LennyLen Wrote: I may be putting words into Kathrande's mouth here, but I believe he was referring ti the fact that Dawkins is himself a sensationalist. When mot scientists make a discovery, they publish an article in a journal. Dawkins throws a press conference and writes a book.
Richard Dawkins is 72. His seminal contributions to the gene-centric view of evolution were published in scientific journals forty years ago, when he was in his 30s. The Selfish Gene is as old as disco, and hardly sensationalist, though it was certainly a sensation. It was a perfectly cogent (though not flawless) argument for gene-centered selection. If Dawkins is a notorious public figure today, mostly as the world's most famous professional atheist, this doesn't actually reflect his scientific career from four decades ago.
Quote:The concept of being programmable machines is implied if you believe in the idea of a "selfish gene."
The concept of humans being (loosely) programmable machines is implied if you believe in genetics at all. This is either an attribution to Dawkins of a noncontroversial statement that any biologist would agree with (genes organize and transmit the information for replicating life) or a strawman (humans are nothing more than strictly deterministic results of their genotype, with no relevance for epigenetics, environment, development, or society.)
-Jester