currently reading? (1 Viewer)

[1000smurfs]

Dawkins is nonsense. It's not science. See Darwin's theory actually made predictions, and could be tested. But Dawkins' stuff is just fairy stories if you ask me.

Of course, I haven't actually read any o his books, but I've heard enough about it to form this opinion. If someone can contradict what I say (concretely, that Dawkins' notions are not testable), please do.

isn't dawkins the neo - darwinist? as in neo conservative and isn't it stephen
J gould thats the (dead) weirdo with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, maybe you are thinking of him?, and didnt they have a fight in a book somewhere, total respect for both of them though, i remember watching the royal instution christmas lectures presented by dawkins and it rocked, he tore apart the then standard creationist attack on the development of the eye ( think this is featured in blind watchmaker) and he had the climbing mount improbable analogy all of which turned me on hardcore for the old evolution,
as mc hawking says fuck the creationists yo

 

[MDR]

I read 'To have and have not' by Hemingway last week. I'd read Fiesta before and meant to root out some more of his stuff. I hadn't realised how he'd influenced some other writers I like, such as Richard Ford and John Updike.

I think Women is probably Buckowski's worst book; Ham on Rye or Post Office are much better. That said, if you enjoy Women (the book not the people) you'll find the others very enjoyable.

Jimmy Magee - I have 'If not now when?' by Primo Levi; s'wroth a read.

 

[NJ Hewitt]

Book at my bedside right now : The Republic, by Plato.
Heavy, heavy going. I may have to keep a notebook. The 'democracy' described here isn't much like the modern concept, it's more of a mob rule and isn't much concerned with any inalienable rights. The philosophical aspects are much more timeless than the politics. Partly a study in the difference between good and evil; whether these are absolutes or defined by society.

 

[mendozy]

A Confederacy of Dunces by yer man who killed himself.

Anyone else think that The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time has become the de facto read for any mid-to-late twenties singleton (but-going-out-with-someone)? Kinda like this year's Life of Pi.

Yup, and it appeals to our short attention spans - you can read it in a day. It's overrated though. Plus there've been so many books on autism in the last few years, it's the latest trendy condition. Pretty fascinating, granted, but I'm getting bored with it now.

 

[mendozy]

Just finished Neil Jordan's new one, Shade, which is great if you like Bowen, Banville and Big House lit. generally. I have a horrible fetish for that stuff, so. Banville's still the best, though.

Currently racing through Brave New World, which is turning out to be one of those supposedly amazing books that you eventually get around to reading and discover to be not that great at all, really. Well, the ideas behind it are great, but it occasionally reads like an inferior version of The Amtrak Wars.

Next on the list is David Foster Wallace's new short story collection, Oblivion, the proof copy of which I ordered in to work under false pretences. Worth the lies and deceit, which I'm sure Mr Wallace would appreciate anyway.

Mr Books Is For Lamers, I'll out you if you're not careful, and ban you from my bold books lending library.

 

[egg_]

Dawkins is nonsense. It's not science. See Darwin's theory actually made predictions, and could be tested. But Dawkins' stuff is just fairy stories if you ask me.

I read The Selfish Gene (years ago again - I seem to do most of my reading in the past) and it was just a strict application of evolution to animal behaviour. Not fairy-storyish at all, strictly grounded in real observation. Very illuminating

 

[billygannon]

I read The Selfish Gene (years ago again - I seem to do most of my reading in the past) and it was just a strict application of evolution to animal behaviour. Not fairy-storyish at all, strictly grounded in real observation. Very illuminating

I was reading the Meme Machine (written by a disciple of Dawkins). I wasn't too gone on it at all. Basically I don't like books that try to authoratively explain everything. I haven't read Dawkins yet... but he not high on "what will I read next?" list.

 

[egg_]

This should probably be in another thread, but ... (do we have a moderator yet?)
Anyway, was watching 'The Life of Mammals' there lately (got it on DVD at Christmas) and learnt a lot about animal behaviour that I hadn't known before.

For instance, did you know that a group of macaques that live in some temple in Sri Lanka have a class system? I couldn't fucking believe it. Monkeys from high-born families are entitled even to take food from the mouths of those from low-born families. It seems money isn't the root of all evil after all

 

[MDR]

Actually, the quote is that the love of money is the root of all evil.

You're right though, monkey's are class.

Oops, better say something about culture - picasso was gay.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

I read The Selfish Gene (years ago again - I seem to do most of my reading in the past) and it was just a strict application of evolution to animal behaviour. Not fairy-storyish at all, strictly grounded in real observation. Very illuminating

Yeah, but what about this notion that evolution is about genes using animals to maintain themselves, rather than the other way around? As if either can possibly be shown to be true! It's teleological mumbo-jumbo. I hope that is actually something he came out with, otherwise I'm going to look very foolish (otherwise?).

 

[egg_]

It's teleological mumbo-jumbo.

Au contraire, Dawkins is anything but a teleologist.
The main thrust of The Selfish Gene was that natural selection applies to individual genetic traits, rather than to groups (or species) of animals, and thus various animal behaviours (such as apparent altruism) can be explained without resorting to mumbo-jumbo

 

[snakybus]

well can you prove the other way round either?

is punctuated equilibrium testable?

only if you've got a few million years to spare

sure isn't that what theories are all about

there's no doubt Dawkins is brilliant at explaining things piece by piece, and his explanation of neo-Darwinism is amazing. I find the idea of the selfish gene a bit extreme as well, but he's an expert and as such his theories deserve at least some consideration. It's his rabid anti-creationism that's a bit incongruous. I mean, how many creationists are out there? And how many of them even know who Dawkins is? axe, grind and all that

Gould tended to tell good stories and was quite the wooly-headed liberal. He instructed through showing, whereas Dawkins pontificates about "the truth".

 

[the bongo]

Currently racing through Brave New World, which is turning out to be one of those supposedly amazing books that you eventually get around to reading and discover to be not that great at all, really. Well, the ideas behind it are great, but it occasionally reads like an inferior version of The Amtrak Wars.

the key to enjoying brave new world is to view it as a farce, take it as a sex comedy and it is one of the best books ever. then you have to ignore the conversation between the world controller and the savage, as that's just shite, and finally concentrate on those ideas.

i'd really like to adapt it to television. it would be so good. anybody want to help write a script?

 

[sarah]

haven't read that, but i did recently read 'the language instinct' and 'how the mind works'.

my flatmates have actually started laughing at me when i mention evolution, cos i started going on about the stuff in the book so much. it's really great to have a handle on these things though.

on the same theme: 'the blind watchmaker' by richard dawkins. totally the most rocking neo-darwinist book of the decade, peeps.

present reading: 'austerlitz' by w.g. sebald. fucking heavy to read, but i'm determined to finish it. his essay stuff in 'on the natural history of destruction' is great.

Liked the language instinct as well and was pumping people full
of my newly found knowledge shortly after finishing it, although it does get
quite technical. Came across it through Susan Blackmoors 'Meme Machine'
which I really like all about the theory of cultural evolution.

One book I which really affected me if we're on the subject of factual
things, was 'We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our
families: Stories from Rwanda
by Philip Gourevitch. Just seems to present all the information very clearly
in what's a pretty complicated history.

 

[egg_]

I find the idea of the selfish gene a bit extreme as well

It's not extreme at all! The Selfish Gene is the theory of evolution by natural selection. If Darwin was right, then Dawkins is right - all he does in The Selfish Gene is apply Darwin's theory in detail, and with rigour, and comes up with some interesting predictions which are verified by observation. Read the book will yiz!

It's his rabid anti-creationism that's a bit incongruous. I mean, how many creationists are out there?

More than you might think.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

[nEiLo]

currently reading "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov- possibly one of my favourite books ever. read it years ago when i was in school. it's very funny.
if you like The Third Police Man by Flann O'Brien you'll like this.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Read the book will yiz!

Hmm, I think I'd better.

 

[snakybus]

It's not extreme at all! The Selfish Gene is the theory of evolution by natural selection. If Darwin was right, then Dawkins is right - all he does in The Selfish Gene is apply Darwin's theory in detail, and with rigour, and comes up with some interesting predictions which are verified by observation. Read the book will yiz!

Well like all theories, there are different ways you can apply them, and Darwin's is no different. The whole idea of the selfish gene is actually represented by one side of evolutionary thinking, represented by Dawkins and others, that surmises that there is a directed process in evolution, that genes direct natural selection in a selfish way. And he does make a remarkable case for it. The other camp, represented by Gould in the popular consciousness, argue that this is an over-simplification - that yes, there are trends in genetics that do suggest a particular preservation of genotypes, and that this leads to particular phenotypes in a definite way. But there are also side effects which occur along the way, and these dominate phenotypes in a much more meaningful way, which lead, in turn, to natural selection. Read Gould's essay "Male nipples and Clitoral Ripples" for a much better description of this than I could give. In my opinion, Dawkin's theories veer towards a kind of "plan" for life - not in any dramatic way, so hold yer horses - whereas the Gould camp says it's just not as simple as that. I think the very fact that there are two ways of looking at this, by eminent scientists, tells me that it's not as cut and dry as all that - saying Dawkins theory is just an absolute extrapolation of Darwinian theory and therefore it's correct may seem like common sense, but there are other extrapolations too. And yes, Dawkins is a bit of an absolutist, as Billy says. And Darwin was anything but.

 

[egg_]

The whole idea of the selfish gene is actually represented by one side of evolutionary thinking, represented by Dawkins and others, that surmises that there is a directed process in evolution, that genes direct natural selection in a selfish way.

Jaykers, well maybe you're right in that that's how "the popular consciousness" views Dawkins, but anything I've read by him would lead me to believe that he would utterly repudiate the view that there is a directed process. Utterly utterly. He always struck me as a dyed-in-the-wool rationalist. The Selfish Gene (the book, rather than the popular perception of the idea) doesn't suggest at ALL (or didn't to me) that genes are directing anything, or actually being selfish - the phrase is just a catchy, descriptive figure of speech

As for Gould ... like I said all this sort of reading is way in the past for me and therefore hazy, but I never got the idea that Gould and Dawkins were in opposing camps. I'm pretty sure I read the "Male nipples" thing - is that where he says "Why do men have nipples? Because women do"? The stuff the two write about is kinda complementary, I'd have thought

there are trends in genetics that do suggest a particular preservation of genotypes, and that this leads to particular phenotypes in a definite way. But there are also side effects which occur along the way, and these dominate phenotypes in a much more meaningful way, which lead, in turn, to natural selection

I don't really understand what you're saying here, dude ... I know what geno- and phenotypes are, but ... could you try and rephrase that? What are 'trends in genetics'? What side effects?

 

[snakybus]

well say there's a genotype for, I dunno, proboscis length on a moth that is directly correlated with an unambiguous selective advantage - say, there's flowers that have the honey in a particular place that the new proboscis can reach.

there will be more moths with the long honker, because of a competetive edge they have - for food

now say there's something else that happens to have been carried by the gene - another heritable feature, like a couple of feelers beside the new proboscis (I'm making this up, but it is this kind of thing - genes are often non-selectively "pulled" along in this way)

but what do you know, these feelers suddenly give the moth another, unexpected advantage - girl moths are attracted to these feelers

all of a sudden long-nose moth has a completely separate competetive advantage - a sexual one, which is the strongest competetive advantage of them all in evolutionary terms

and it was all by accident

now, I think that's the idea - Gould says these "happy accidents" are far more influential than the more directed genotype-phenotype-natural selection relationship, though some of these accidental phenotypes are useless and some are potentially very useful eg the clitoris (though some would argue..... ok let's not go there)

It all makes me want to go back and read Dawkins and Gould again. Oh and as for the hole two camps thing - as far as I know, they hated each other's guts (again, I'm a bit hazy here too, hope I don't get sued!). Scientists, they're so cute when they fight.