A silly idea or a dangerous delusion
Analysis of Dawkins's The Selfish Gene
The preface says "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." I disagree. The book should not be read at all, as it has no factual or educational value. Or it should be read as pure fiction, as it is not scientific. It is strange that it was published at all.
Dawkins starts with some sort of epiphany, that we humans are not the actual organisms that we are, but merely survival machines for the `selfish molecules known as genes'. The preface reads like student's notes, by someone who did not quite get the lecture.
The first chapter (with pompous title "Why are people?") is just as silly as the preface. I found myself disagreeing with every assertion. Let's take the first sentence. "Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence." What? 1) Life is not a singular term; it is a collective noun for a myriad of living systems, complex themselves. 2) Knowing that life can exist in a myriad of complex forms, what does the metaphor `comes of age' convey? That all of life forms singularly come of age, at certain defined point? Or that `life' is a singular entity, somehow independent of forms within which it exists? 3) On `a' planet? How would Dawkins know? Has he empirical grounds for such comparison? Has he ever witnessed `life', as an entity, on a different planet? If not, why this generalisation? 4) Why would the entity within the organism figure out the reason for its own existence? I would have thought that it was the other way round - if `life' is an entity that exists within us, shouldn't it be the organism that must figure out what exists within itself? (The existence already knows.) 5) The first sentence fails completely to establish the levels of analysis.
The problem with communicating any sort of epiphany to others is that you cannot assume that their starting point is the same as yours. A scientific book would first try to establish the common grounds, the commonly agreed upon principles or facts, if they are to be challenged. It would not start with a personal view, and flimsy metaphors, then proceed with fairy tales. A scientific book would establish the levels of analysis, and explain the reason for proceeding in a certain manner. A popular scientific book would take time to explain to a lay person the basics of theoretical thinking, and why laying out levels of analysis is important. It would also stress importance of empirical evidence, and use of sources. The most difficult thing for a lay person is to figure out that the levels of analysis are confused, if they are, or if empirical evidence is used properly. Even academics, in my experience, tend to be attracted by trends, captivated by the rhetoric and ignorant of the epistemology.
A number of reviewers state that the book is fascinating because Dawkins is such a good writer, and his prose is captivating. How can anyone flow with a prose that continually introduces semantically and syntactically fuzzy elements? I had to re-read that first sentence many times, in order to comprehend its meaning, and failed. I could not even establish a temporary interpretation of its intention, not even a quasi-meaning. I had to argue with nearly every sentence during the first paragraphs. That's anything but captivating. It makes one wonder if a lack of ability to interpret language makes people susceptible to manipulation. I've tried to read the book several times since 2002, and always gave up after the second chapter. Skimming through the rest, it was only more of the same. The empirical examples for animals came presumably from zoology; however empirical grounds for important discussion of kin were just hypothetical examples. Dawkins found it convenient to ignore a science that has amassed huge knowledge on kinship, namely anthropology. Author's ignorance of the variety of kinship's systems (and implicitly the variety of related behaviours) is not only rude or disrespectful; it also reveals his incompetence in writing about complex subjects. He is ignorant of his own ignorance - yet the lay readers do not know that, they are deceived.
The mark of a good scientist is the ability to challenge his or her own perceptions. A good scientist will probe for truth, not popularity. A good scientist will ask others to do the same, i.e. challenge his perceptions or discoveries, so they together can come closer to truth. Richard Dawkins clearly wanted many people to believe in his epiphany, to take them on his discovery ride before he knew where he was going. Now that most of his ideas are proved wrong, he does not seem to be capable of admitting it. That says it all.
What I particularly disliked about the book is that Dawkins asserts himself as a Darwin interpreter. How many of the reviewers have read Darwin's Origin of Species? Darwin's work shows all the marks of a true scientist. He has been studying the subject for decades, before he decided he would present his findings. He starts out with a long list of previous research, meticulously described, before he presents his own theory. Darwin is aware of the controversy he may create and the heretical standpoint he takes to his own beliefs; yet he does not present his theory to gain status, position or popularity. His sound research has convinced him, and he thinks it's his duty to convey truthfully what he has discovered.
It saddens me to think that Darwin is now interpreted through Dawkins, as Darwin would probably have disagreed with Dawkins's unscientific methods and his jumping to foolish conclusions. To my knowledge, Richard Dawkins has not done any significant research, so his work can't be compared to Darwin's ever, on any level. Dawkins is an interpreter, and a poor one at that.
If people are truly interested in the theory of evolution, they should read the original works, and find decent interpretations that help us understand the context. If readers are into our origins, the best contemporary author I can think of is Nick Lane, whose books on oxygen and mitochondria are extremely well researched and complied, brilliantly written and exciting. Having read his books, I can never think of a `single' gene or a `selfish gene'. The number of gens in a single cell and the complex rules for transfer of mitochondrial genes debunk that.
The completion of the human genome project has rendered any notion of a single gene useless yet some authors (like Matt Ridley) continue to write as if genes were separate entities, rather than integrated in the functional wholes of cells. Another example of the single gene delusion is the questionably scientific genetic manipulation of genes in plants intended for human consumption. Experiments showed that single genes of different species would not transfer, but had to be forced. Experimental animals would not eat them; they had to be force fed, and most of them died, had malformed offspring or could not reproduce at all. What has GM got to do with the selfish gene theory? The fantasies of isolated genes have lead to the manipulative thinking and production of genetically modified organisms. The experiments (obscured to the mainstream) showed that in reality, most genes act as integrated networks; therefore their transfer can wreak havoc in organisms. Now that the danger is discovered, the experimenting itself can be traced back to such superficial theories of independent genes.
Therefore, when Dawkins asks the reader to have faith in his fantasies, he is asking for a huge leap of faith. Rather than selfishness or altruism, when it comes to genes, I'd recommend the reader to think systems and function, organising hierarchies, and abstract communication. The idea of a `selfish gene' is, depending on the context, a silly idea or a dangerous delusion.
Get more detail about The Selfish Gene : 30th Anniversary edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment