Author Topic: Evolution for Everyone  (Read 2064 times)

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Evolution for Everyone
« on: January 22, 2019, 04:47:36 PM »
Contrary to what the title might suggest, this is not a basic primer of essential evolutionary details. The subtitle is "How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives". I suppose David Sloan Wilson's book might loosely be classified in that much-maligned category 'socio-biology' - if so, then I think the author possesses a subtlety of thought that, for me, puts him streaks ahead of the well-known pundits of the genre, Desmond Morris and Konrad Lorenz. In terms of relevance to our everyday lives, I'd say he was a lot more significant than Richard Dawkins or even Stephen J Gould or Steve Jones (his use of language is far less confusing and ambiguous than Dawkins, for instance, in his way of describing what is actually going on with those matters of phenotype and genotype. He's also far better at spotting 'religious' thinking in all its aspects - i.e. Marxism or secular gurus such as Ayn Rand - than Dawkins).

Well, I've not finished the book yet, but I'm delighted to have come across an evolutionary thinker I hadn't heard of before, and who seems to have quite a few titles to his name. Not the least of his virtues is the easily comprehensible style in which he writes. Anyone else here familiar with Mr. Sloan Wilson?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 05:10:09 PM by Dicky Underpants »
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2019, 05:13:30 PM »
Appears to be the son of the novelist Sloan Wilson, author of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

wigginhall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17730
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2019, 06:09:18 PM »
He's well known for advocating group selection, isn't he?  Famous quote, "altruistic groups beat selfish groups".
They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2019, 04:44:41 PM »
He's well known for advocating group selection, isn't he?  Famous quote, "altruistic groups beat selfish groups".

Yes indeed, wiggi. That's one of the reasons he finds a lot of good in various religions, since they reinforce group altruism.
Dawkins and his more devoted followers don't like him at all - I read one such who described some of Wilson's views as 'madness'. I don't think Dawkins accords too much significance to group selection. I need to read The Extended Phenotype to find out what he says. Don't know if I'll get round to that.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64323
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2019, 08:35:05 PM »
Vlad is a big fan of Wilson because he thinks "new atheism" is a belief.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2019, 04:33:23 PM »
Vlad is a big fan of Wilson because he thinks "new atheism" is a belief.

Ah yes - I see that conversation is a year old. Mr Sloan Wilson doesn't appear to have filled anybody apart from Vlad with unqualified enthusiasm. I have to say that my initial zeal waned somewhat as I read on into the book, though I certainly found his ideas interesting. The attempt to trace all social behaviour down to evolutionary roots is worthy, but I found some of his arguments overly complex, and paradoxically vague. That may just be down to my limited powers of comprehension though.

As for 'new atheism' being a belief - or belief system - I've never been persuaded that there's any real community of atheists around with their strong tribal ties and rituals. Atheists differ a very great deal in the manner of their unbelief, and the paths by which they come to it. However, I will grant this though - there is something of a 'religious' feel to the way thinkers like Dawkins are considered by some of their more enthusiastic supporters. Dawkins in particular does seem to have a central core of celebrity acolytes who treat him as some kind of High Priest. I don't know how much Dawkins himself welcomes such treatment - after all, who would like to have Ricky Gervais as personal altar-boy? :)

Dawkins remains a massively important thinker, but his work should always be examined in the light of thinkers with conflicting evolutionary theories - especially by those best able to make such appraisals (the trained scientists themselves).
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2019, 06:03:48 PM »
Ah yes - I see that conversation is a year old. Mr Sloan Wilson doesn't appear to have filled anybody apart from Vlad with unqualified enthusiasm. I have to say that my initial zeal waned somewhat as I read on into the book, though I certainly found his ideas interesting. The attempt to trace all social behaviour down to evolutionary roots is worthy, but I found some of his arguments overly complex, and paradoxically vague. That may just be down to my limited powers of comprehension though.

As for 'new atheism' being a belief - or belief system - I've never been persuaded that there's any real community of atheists around with their strong tribal ties and rituals. Atheists differ a very great deal in the manner of their unbelief, and the paths by which they come to it. However, I will grant this though - there is something of a 'religious' feel to the way thinkers like Dawkins are considered by some of their more enthusiastic supporters. Dawkins in particular does seem to have a central core of celebrity acolytes who treat him as some kind of High Priest. I don't know how much Dawkins himself welcomes such treatment - after all, who would like to have Ricky Gervais as personal altar-boy? :)

Dawkins remains a massively important thinker, but his work should always be examined in the light of thinkers with conflicting evolutionary theories - especially by those best able to make such appraisals (the trained scientists themselves).
I am not disputing anything you say here, and this post is a more general comment.
 I think it is too often forgotten that Richard Dawkins was asked to take on, and appointed as, the   Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and that the job was designed for him in the first place. Over the years, I have read many moans about his style of writing etc but what do they, these detractors, expect him to do? Write in wishy-washy terms? Waffle? Present opposing views which are not backed up by any objective evidence as equally valid?  Of course he has made some mistakes but I haven't seen or heard of him denying them!He could easily have retired  and not worked again, but he continues to do so after a nasty stroke.  Thank goodness for him and those like him who do similar work and challenge woo of all sorts at every turn.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2019, 05:28:32 PM »
I am not disputing anything you say here, and this post is a more general comment.
 I think it is too often forgotten that Richard Dawkins was asked to take on, and appointed as, the   Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and that the job was designed for him in the first place. Over the years, I have read many moans about his style of writing etc but what do they, these detractors, expect him to do? Write in wishy-washy terms? Waffle? Present opposing views which are not backed up by any objective evidence as equally valid?  Of course he has made some mistakes but I haven't seen or heard of him denying them!He could easily have retired  and not worked again, but he continues to do so after a nasty stroke.  Thank goodness for him and those like him who do similar work and challenge woo of all sorts at every turn.

Hi Susan

I thought it was clear from my post that I admire Dawkins very much. I have some reservations about his use of language, but in this he is to some extent restricted by the nature of the English language itself (not sure about how he would succeed if writing in Lakota or Japanese etc.) On just one matter, it's extremely difficult to write about non-intentional processes in evolution when intentionality is built into the language itself ("The Selfish Gene"). Attenborough is worse in this respect, and necessarily so, since to explain certain animal behavioural subtleties via television is even more difficult than via the written word. You can certainly show them, but that's a long way from explaining them.
Anyway, my main point was the way certain celebrities have made him a cult figure, and I don't think this helps scientific debate.
Jim Al-Khalili has a similar agenda in terms of helping the general public to understand science, and I don't suppose he's likely to receive the same cult status. Besides, despite being an atheist, he's rather kinder to religion (as regards Islam* at least allowing science to flourish) than Dawkins is likely to be.

*In its golden age.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2019, 06:33:15 PM »
Hi Susan

I thought it was clear from my post that I admire Dawkins very much. I have some reservations about his use of language, but in this he is to some extent restricted by the nature of the English language itself (not sure about how he would succeed if writing in Lakota or Japanese etc.) On just one matter, it's extremely difficult to write about non-intentional processes in evolution when intentionality is built into the language itself ("The Selfish Gene"). Attenborough is worse in this respect, and necessarily so, since to explain certain animal behavioural subtleties via television is even more difficult than via the written word. You can certainly show them, but that's a long way from explaining them.
Anyway, my main point was the way certain celebrities have made him a cult figure, and I don't think this helps scientific debate.
Jim Al-Khalili has a similar agenda in terms of helping the general public to understand science, and I don't suppose he's likely to receive the same cult status. Besides, despite being an atheist, he's rather kinder to religion (as regards Islam* at least allowing science to flourish) than Dawkins is likely to be.

*In its golden age.
I typed a long,  interesting and thoughtful etc post (well, that's my opinion of it!) and then I must have touched some combination of keys and some weird screen came up I couldn't get rid of, so I LOST THE LOT!!

*grits teeth and weeps silently* :)
Anyway, it was all about yes, I understood your admiration for RD, I listened to the whole page of Wikipedia on Jim Al-khalili and of course I have heard him a lot on Radio 4.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2019, 10:45:42 PM »
I like Dicky Dawkins as well, but he should stick to zoology: his attempts at philosophy are shite.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2019, 08:53:33 AM »
I like Dicky Dawkins as well, but he should stick to zoology: his attempts at philosophy are shite.
Why? Citations needed, specifically showing that you have grounds for this assertion.



Interestingly, there was a special edition of 'The Life Scientific' yesterday when Jim al-khalili was being interviewed.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2019, 09:23:41 AM »
Why? Citations needed, specifically showing that you have grounds for this assertion.



Interestingly, there was a special edition of 'The Life Scientific' yesterday when Jim al-khalili was being interviewed.
His argument about complexity in 'The Blind Watchmaker' has been well and truly rubbished.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7989
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2019, 11:45:02 AM »
His argument about complexity in 'The Blind Watchmaker' has been well and truly rubbished.


By whom?
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2019, 12:13:31 PM »
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2019, 12:20:39 PM »
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_bit_unpreposs/
A very simple computer algorithm can generate very complex designs.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2019, 12:42:40 PM »
His argument about complexity in 'The Blind Watchmaker' has been well and truly rubbished.

Drivel. It's standard evolutionary theory as accepted by pretty much everybody who studies the subject.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2019, 12:45:47 PM »
Drivel. It's standard evolutionary theory as accepted by pretty much everybody who studies the subject.
His argument was that an intelligent designer must be more complex than that which s/he designs. It had nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Evolution for Everyone
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2019, 01:13:32 PM »
His argument was that an intelligent designer must be more complex than that which s/he designs. It had nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

OK, when you said "argument about complexity" I assumed you meant complexity in nature. Never mind - of course an intelligent designer would have to be more complex that its design. An intelligent designer would need to hold the design in its mind - and it couldn't do that if its mind was less complicated than the design.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an algorithmic design process, not an intelligent designer.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))