Happy Dawkins Day!

Delirium

Happy birthday to Professor Dawkins. Hopefully he'll like the cake I got to celebrate :P



That's if he hasn't filled up on Christians :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1aFvmx8go

RDM_83 again

I know this is a question probably more suitable to the biology board but it been a fair few years ( )since I did my undergrad and I wonder how Dawkins work is viewed by these days (referring to his real/professional work!), anyway as someone who would be generally on the other side of the dawkins debate this does remind me I should reread the selfish gene and the blind watch maker after many many years as he is a very good science writer

Peregrinus

He's a brilliant writer of popular science - explaining scientific insights in language that the likes of me can follow.

As to how his scientific research and other work is regarded by peers, I'm not really qualified to say. FWIW, I've never heard anybody cast any aspersions against it, or against his reputation in this regard, but it's been aboput twenty years since he worked in the field.

It might be fair to say that he was a reputable but not outstanding academic scientist - he never obtained a chair in that field - whereas he is an outstanding communicator of science.

Sarky

I suspect you start falling behind in terms of research a bit when you stop it to write books.

Peregrinus

I suspect he is playing to his strengths. His career as a lecturer in biology was respectable but not outstandinlgy distinguished, as far as I can see, but he attracted real notice for his talent in communicating science to a wide audience, to the point where his books started winning awards, the honorary doctorates started to come in and he ended up having a chair (in "public understanding of science") endowed for him - which is how be became Professor Dawkins, rather than humble Dr. Dawkins.

And, if that is what he is good at, then it's not just in his interests but in ours too that that's how he should spend his time.

Kinski

One thing that stunned me about Dawkins, and it will probably seem a minor point but nonetheless sowed some suspicions in my mind: in an interview, he was asked something about the number of people around the world who believe in god, and what he made of this. He responded that for much of history people used to think the earth was flat - which isn't true at all.

People have know since antiquity that it's round, and had a fairly good idea how large it is (nobody thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world, rather they thought, rightly, that he was going the long way to India.)

Surely someone like Dawkins, who presents himself as something of an unofficial ambassador for "Science", would or should know this. Either he doesn't, which I find very odd, or he does and dishonestly used a common misconception to support his argument. Neither seems particularly good to me.

Hotblack Desiato

Or you're reading waay too much into an off the cuff comment...

Eramen

Kinski wrote: »

One thing that stunned me about Dawkins, and it will probably seem a minor point but nonetheless sowed some suspicions in my mind: in an interview, he was asked something about the number of people around the world who believe in god, and what he made of this. He responded that for much of history people used to think the earth was flat - which isn't true at all.

People have know since antiquity that it's round, and had a fairly good idea how large it is (nobody thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world, rather they thought, rightly, that he was going the long way to India.)

Surely someone like Dawkins, who presents himself as something of an unofficial ambassador for "Science", would or should know this. Either he doesn't, which I find very odd, or he does and dishonestly used a common misconception to support his argument. Neither seems particularly good to me.

The thing is that Dawkins is Public Representative of a specific philosophical viewpoint for a section of academia first, and a professor second, so he definitely has a bias and will set information off in a trajectory which is suitable to the viewpoint for which he paid to lobby. This could possibly account for the inadequacy of his argument you're highlighting.

robindch

Kinski wrote: »

He responded that for much of history people used to think the earth was flat - which isn't true at all.

It's a fairly accurate comment -- anatomically-current humans arrived perhaps 200,000 years ago and behaviorally-current humans, perhaps 50,000 years ago. We've no idea who first noticed the earth was round, but I'd imagine it's unlikely to have been earlier than 5,000 years ago. Which means that humans during either around 90% or around 97.5% (according to how you want to define "humans") of human history thinking that they lived on a flat earth.

Not that it's likely that many people up to a few thousand years ago would have been thinking of the shape of the earth anyway.

Kinski

robindch wrote: »

It's a fairly accurate comment -- anatomically-current humans arrived perhaps 200,000 years ago and behaviorally-current humans, perhaps 50,000 years ago. We've no idea who first noticed the earth was round, but I'd imagine it's unlikely to have been earlier than 5,000 years ago. Which means that humans during either around 90% or around 97.5% (according to how you want to define "humans") of human history thinking that they lived on a flat earth.

Not that it's likely that many people up to a few thousand years ago would have been thinking of the shape of the earth anyway.

Well, history only begins a few thousand years ago. As you say, we don't what prehistoric people thought about the world's shape or size, or if they thought about it at all (if indeed they even had a concept of "world" beyond their own immediate experience.)

So I'd ordinarily assume when someone says "most people thought the earth was flat," they're saying that this was a common belief prior to Columbus and Magellan.

But there's probably not much point discussing this, since I don't recall his exact words (and I'm probably being anal about what may be no more than a minor slip). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt!

MagicMarker

I'd prefer "Happy Dick Day".

Midlife Crashes

I completely respect Dawkins as a scientist (Kinda have to). But The God Delusion was very basic from a philosophical POV. Shocked at some of the stuff in it..

Gbear

Peregrinus wrote: »

He's a brilliant writer of popular science - explaining scientific insights in language that the likes of me can follow.

As to how his scientific research and other work is regarded by peers, I'm not really qualified to say. FWIW, I've never heard anybody cast any aspersions against it, or against his reputation in this regard, but it's been aboput twenty years since he worked in the field.

It might be fair to say that he was a reputable but not outstanding academic scientist - he never obtained a chair in that field - whereas he is an outstanding communicator of science.

I think that with any scientist - even ones in a different league to Dawkins like Dirac, Hawkins, Heisenberg, Einstein - their best work is done when they're fairly young.

Not sure why that is. You'd think experience would grant them a little bit of extra wisdom but from my reading of biographies of scientists, a lot of them are kinda stuck at the point where they did their best work and are somewhat averse to change - think Einstein and quantum mechanics.

RDM_83 again

Gbear wrote: »

I think that with any scientist - even ones in a different league to Dawkins like Dirac, Hawkins, Heisenberg, Einstein - their best work is done when they're fairly young.

Not sure why that is. You'd think experience would grant them a little bit of extra wisdom but from my reading of biographies of scientists, a lot of them are kinda stuck at the point where they did their best work and are somewhat averse to change - think Einstein and quantum mechanics.

All those examples are theoretical physicists though, biology, even the end of it which Dawkins was involved in is a rather different type of subject.

In relation to my previous post I asked the question more because at the time it seemed like his theories were a bit out of favour.

nagirrac

Compared to the giants of 20th century evolutionary biology (J. Maynard Smith, W.D. Hamilton, G.C. Williams and Richard Price) Richard Dawkins is a very minor player in terms of his contribution to research. During his academic career his published work was very modest, compared to those listed above. His "selfish gene" theory is based on the work of W.D. Hamilton, who both coined the phrase "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene in a 1971 paper, 5 years before Dawkins published his book. It is a bit shameful that Dawkins has never acknowledged Hamilton in print as the originator of the phrase and concept, with the result that Dawkins is consistently credited with coining the term and the concept.

His other claim to fame is the originator of the concept of the meme. Unfortunately for Dawkins somebody got there before him as well, the German biologist Richard Semon published a book called "Die Mneme" in 1904, which discussed the cultural transmission of experiences. At least Semon is now credited on Dawkins' wikipedia page, unlike Hamilton.

Dawkins was a superb popular science writer before starting his second career of opportunistic self promoter (in case you hadn't noticed he is always in the headlines). As Terry Eagelton famously said about The God Delusion "it is like someone writing a book on biology whose sole knowledge of the subject was acquired from reading The British Book of Birds".

I am not sure how kindly history will judge him. It somewhat depends on the future of the gene-centric view of evolution. If the gene-centric view holds then he should get enormous credit for popularizing the idea that we are essentially bio-robots controlled solely by our genes. The problem however is he has elevated the gene-centric view to the level of dogma, and if it turns out to be incorrect, he will be remembered for propegating a false dogma. This, in addition to bringing science into disrepute by setting it up in an antagonistic role against religion, will not be a favorable legacy.

..and yes, I don't like Dawkins, no need to remind me.

Peregrinus

Well, there’s really three Dawkinses:

Dawkins the scientist (late 1960s to late 1980s/early 1990s): As I said above, it’s not really for me to say how great or otherwise his achievements are; I’ll leave that to the academy.

Dawkins the popular communicator of scientific knowledge (1980s - present). No question; outstanding, and widely recognised as such.

Dawkins the writer/speaker on questions of religion: (late 90s - present). What he is currently best known for. Opinion about how good he is at this seems largely to depend on the extent to which you agree with him.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

His "selfish gene" theory is based on the work of W.D. Hamilton, who both coined the phrase "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene in a 1971 paper, 5 years before Dawkins published his book. It is a bit shameful that Dawkins has never acknowledged Hamilton in print as the originator of the phrase and concept, with the result that Dawkins is consistently credited with coining the term and the concept.

If you're going to sling mud about the place, it's best to get your facts straight.

Dawkins has been fulsome in his praise of Hamilton and the work he did. Not only has Dawkins acknowledged him copiously in The Selfish Gene, but in many other places and publications too. In fact, one can credibly argue that Dawkins' did much to popularize Hamilton's ideas, and certainly more than Hamilton ever did. Here are a few quotes just from TSG. There are many more which you can find quite easily.

Dawkins wrote:

But ethology has recently been invigorated by an invasion of fresh ideas from sources not conventionally regarded as ethological. This book is largely based on these new ideas. Their originators are acknowledged in the appropriate places in the text; the dominant figures are G. C. Williams, J. Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton, and R. L. Trivers. [...] The gene's-eye view of Darwinism is implicit in the writings of R. A. Fisher and the other great pioneers of neo-Darwinism in the early thirties, but was made explicit by W. D. Hamilton and G. C. Williams in the sixties. For me their insight had a visionary quality. [...]The essential concept Maynard Smith introduces is that of the evolutionarily stable strategy, an idea that he traces back to W. D. Hamilton and R. H. MacArthur. [...]It has long been clear that this must be why altruism by parents towards their young is so common. What R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and especially W. D. Hamilton realized, was that the same applies to other close relations-brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, close cousins. If an individual dies in order to save ten close relatives, one copy of the kin-altruism gene may be lost, but a larger number of copies of the same gene is saved. 'A larger number' is a bit vague. So is 'close relatives'. We can do better than that, as Hamilton showed. His two papers of 1964 are among the most important contributions to social ethology ever written, and I have never been able to understand why they have been so neglected by ethologists (his name does not even appear in the index of two major text-books of ethology, both published in 1970).[...] It was Hamilton who brilliantly realized that, at least in the ants, bees, and wasps, the workers may actually be more closely related to the brood than the queen herself is! This led him, and later Trivers and Hare, on to one of the most spectacular triumphs of the selfish gene theory.

Geomy

I read the God delusion book it was funny and satirical in some parts,interesting in others,some contradictions thrown in here and there.

I think he's ok and softening out lately.

To some the God delusion was more like a resentment twoards religion and superstition etc

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

If you're going to sling mud about the place, it's best to get your facts straight. Dawkins has been fulsome in his praise of Hamilton and the work he did.

Of course Dawkins had to acknowledge Hamilton and many others, his books are entirely based on their work. That's not the point I was making however. I am referring to Dawkins' failure to give credit to Hamilton for coining the term "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene.

The facts are that Hamilton presented a paper in 1969 (published in 1971), which used the phrase "selfish gene" for the first time in scientific literature, proving him to be the originator of the phrase and the concept of the selfish gene. The phrase was later taken up by two other authors (Alexander and Cambell, in separate publications) before Dawkins used it as the title of his book. The point is that Dawkins has never acknowledged Hamilton in print as the originator of the phrase or concept of the selfish gene.

For someone who has has had a bash at me in the past for plagiarism, I am amazed you are not similarily outraged by Dawkins shameful "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions".

Sarky

Please tell me you're not actually serious. You're not actually serious nagirrac are you?

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

..and yes, I don't like Dawkins, no need to remind me.

So why do you harp on about him all the time then?

I couldn't give a fig if Dawkins, Hitchens and all the rest are likable or even correct.
It still wouldn't do a thing to prove religion correct.
That's your real beef with him isn't it? That he promotes atheism.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Please tell me you're not actually serious. You're not actually serious nagirrac are you?

Very serious. Do you have something to say to refute what I have said or are you just going to engage in ad hominum as on other threads?

I can point you to the evidence if you would like.

Sarky

Wait, let me just make sure we're on the same page here. Your beef with Dawkins right now is that the title of his book is a phrase someone else coined before that. Is this what you're saying? Because it looks to be what you're saying.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

So why do you harp on about him all the time then?

That's your real beef with him isn't it? That he promotes atheism.

I harp on about him because his illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas need to be challenged at every opportunity.

Joe_Christ

nagirrac wrote: »

I harp on about him because his illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas need to be challenged at every opportunity.

That's funny

AbuseMePlz

Dawkins talk sense in a world of shiite talkers.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Wait, let me just make sure we're on the same page here. Your beef with Dawkins right now is that the title of his book is a phrase someone else coined before that. Is this what you're saying? Because it looks to be what you're saying.

My beef with Dawkins is there is a myth that he both coined the phrase "selfish gene" and originated the theory of the selfish gene, and he has done nothing to dispell this myth. The "selfish gene" is quite a significant concept, he should have acknowledged that the phrase and concept belonged to Hamilton. Unless you believe that "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions" is fair game.

This is a not an isolated incident. Dawkins is also credited with inventing the "meme" concept, although a German biologist wrote a book caled "Die Mneme" in 1903, outlining the same idea.

The internet is a great tool. Mike Sutton, editor of the internet Journal of Criminology exposed the Dawkins myth on March 5th, 2013. Since then the wiki entry for Dawkins/The Selfish Gene has been updated from "Dawkins coined the term selfish gene" to "used the term selfish gene". Better late than never I suppose.

The myth of Dawkins is based on self promotion and not on original invention.

AbuseMePlz

nagirrac wrote: »

My beef with Dawkins is there is a myth that he both coined the phrase "selfish gene" and originated the theory of the selfish gene, and he has done nothing to dispell this myth. The "selfish gene" is quite a significant concept, he should have acknowledged that the phrase and concept belonged to Hamilton. Unless you believe that "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions" is fair game.

This is a not an isolated incident. Dawkins is also credited with inventing the "meme" concept, although a German biologist wrote a book caled "Die Mneme" in 1903, outlining the same idea.

The internet is a great tool. Mike Sutton, editor of the internet Journal of Criminology exposed the Dawkins myth on March 5th, 2013. Since then the wiki entry for Dawkins/The Selfish Gene has been updated from "Dawkins coined the term selfish gene" to "used the term selfish gene". Better late than never I suppose.

The myth of Dawkins is based on self promotion and not on original invention.

Have you ever read a Dawkins book? Because it seems like you haven't. It's nigh on impossible to argue his points.

keane2097

Is self-promotion immoral or what?

I run a website that I promote on my own behalf regularly because I would like to make money out of it, stick myself and Richard in the same cell at least I'll have someone interesting to talk to.

Sarky

Presumably nagirrac you've sent a message to Hamilton warning him that Dawkins used "The Selfish Gene" as a book title. I mean, what other reason could he possibly have for not making a big deal out of it? I bet he's delighted you got so outraged on his behalf.

While you're at it, you should contact any surviving family of the originator of Humpty Dumpty, there are a shedload of books and films nicking their phrase. It's a disgrace, so it is Joe.

mohawk

nagirrac wrote: »

My beef with Dawkins is there is a myth that he both coined the phrase "selfish gene" and originated the theory of the selfish gene, and he has done nothing to dispell this myth. The "selfish gene" is quite a significant concept, he should have acknowledged that the phrase and concept belonged to Hamilton. Unless you believe that "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions" is fair game.

This is a not an isolated incident. Dawkins is also credited with inventing the "meme" concept, although a German biologist wrote a book caled "Die Mneme" in 1903, outlining the same idea.

The internet is a great tool. Mike Sutton, editor of the internet Journal of Criminology exposed the Dawkins myth on March 5th, 2013. Since then the wiki entry for Dawkins/The Selfish Gene has been updated from "Dawkins coined the term selfish gene" to "used the term selfish gene". Better late than never I suppose.

The myth of Dawkins is based on self promotion and not on original invention.

Science is full of instances where one guy comes up with an idea another guy mentions it or uses it himself and its the second guy that gets all the credit.
As long as Dawkins referenced his book where he used Hamiltons ideas and work then he has done nothing wrong. The title of the book is a way of catching peoples eye so they buy it.
I really fail to see the issue.

MagicMarker

mohawk wrote: »

I really fail to see the issue.

Can't you? But someone is outraged on the internet!!

nagirrac

AbuseMePlz wrote: »

Have you ever read a Dawkins book? Because it seems like you haven't. It's nigh on impossible to argue his points.

I've read all of them, he is a superb writer.

Which points would you like to discuss, his biology or anti-religion?

Joe_Christ

nagirrac wrote: »

I've read all of them, he is a superb writer.

Which points would you like to discuss, his biology or anti-religion?

The burden of evidence is on you. You are the one making the claims here. And we all love a bit of evidence don't we?

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Presumably nagirrac you've sent a message to Hamilton warning him that Dawkins used "The Selfish Gene" as a book title. I mean, what other reason could he possibly have for not making a big deal out of it? I bet he's delighted you got so outraged on his behalf.

Pretty pathetic Sarky, as Hamilton died in 2000. Dawkins had plenty opportunites to credit him during his lifetime and failed.

Truly disappointing that so many on this thread are defending plagerism, simply because they have bought into the Dawkins myth. I thought atheists were supposed to be free thinkers?

keane2097

Sarky wrote: »

While you're at it, you should contact any surviving family of the originator of Humpty Dumpty, there are a shedload of books and films nicking their phrase. It's a disgrace, so it is Joe.

Humpty Dumpty is an interesting one because we all take it on faith that he's an egg for, like, no reason.

nagirrac

Joe_Christ wrote: »

The burden of evidence is on you. You are the one making the claims here. And we all love a bit of evidence don't we?

AbuseMePlz claimed that is well nigh impossible to argue Dawkins points if one has read his books. This is an unrelated question to the plagerisation issue.
What points is the poster referring to is my question.

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

Pretty pathetic Sarky, as Hamilton died in 2000. Dawkins had plenty opportunites to credit him during his lifetime and failed.

Truly disappointing that so many on this thread are defending plagerism, simply because they have bought into the Dawkins myth. I thought atheists were supposed to be free thinkers?

Look, stop your nonsense. You can't have plagiarism without failing to cite your sources, robindch posted a passage where Hamilton and his work is explicitly named, his research cited and lauded, he even points out that a previous author implied the theories in question but explicitly states that Hamilton was the first person to explicitly state them.

Again:

The gene's-eye view of Darwinism is implicit in the writings of R. A. Fisher and the other great pioneers of neo-Darwinism in the early thirties, but was made explicit by W. D. Hamilton and G. C. Williams in the sixties.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

I thought atheists were supposed to be free thinkers?

We tend to freely think about more important stuff than the shíte you're coming out with.

Joe_Christ

nagirrac wrote: »

AbuseMePlz claimed that is well nigh impossible to argue Dawkins points if one has read his books. This is an unrelated question to the plagerisation issue.
What points is the poster referring to is my question.

Your saying dawkins never credited Hamilton, you've been proven wrong. Even if you weren't wrong who cares? It would just be taking credit for someone else's work, it's not like be actively covered up for countless rapists around the world or anything?

nagirrac

keane2097 wrote: »

Look, stop your nonsense. You can't have plagiarism without failing to cite your sources, robindch posted a passage where Hamilton and his work is explicitly named, his research cited and lauded, he even points out that a previous author implied the theories in question but explicitly states that Hamilton was the first person to explicitly state them.

Irrelevant to the argument. The gene-centric view of evolution was around since the 1930s. However, the "selfish gene" concept extends that view considerably and places the gene firmly as the target of selection, the whole basis of Hamilton's work and later Dawkin's claim. We are now getting into the science but it is important for context. By the by, the gene as the target of selection is largely rejected by modern evolutionary biologists, it is the whole genotype in the context of its environment (the phenotype), or more simply the organism, that is selected. So, not alone is Dawkins wrong in claiming another scientist's ideas, his science (and Hamilton's) is wrong by today's standards.

Citing someone's work in the field is not enough. Using the language and ideas invented by another author also needs to be acknowledged. Nobody used the term "selfish gene" before Hamilton, that is the point. Hopefully robinich can give an updated view on this.

nagirrac

Joe_Christ wrote: »

Your saying dawkins never credited Hamilton, you've been proven wrong. Even if you weren't wrong who cares? It would just be taking credit for someone else's work, it's not like be actively covered up for countless rapists around the world or anything?

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond but taking credit for someone else's ideas is actually taken quite seriously in science and many other fields.

I have not been proven wrong as I have clearly agreed from the outset that Dawkins credited Hamilton's research in the field, along with many other scientists prior to Hamilton and Dawkins. That's not the point, if you care to actually read my posts and try and understand the issue.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

I harp on about him because his illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas need to be challenged at every opportunity.

Illogical, inaccurate and dangerous would be a pretty good description of religion tbh.
But please do demonstrate why you hold that opinion (apart from disliking him and the fact he promotes atheism of course)

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond but taking credit for someone else's ideas is actually taken quite seriously in science and many other fields.

As is evident from the criticism Dawkins has received from the scientific community over the past 3 decades. The outrage is palpable indeed.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

Illogical, inaccurate and dangerous would be a pretty good description of religion tbh.
But please do demonstrate why you hold that opinion (apart from disliking him and the fact he promotes atheism of course)

I actually agree regarding many organised religions, but replacing one set of illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas with a set that is even more illogical, inaccurate and dangerous is my humble opinion not a good thing for society in the long run.

I will have to come back to this but will be happy to share my opinions later.

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

Irrelevant to the argument. The gene-centric view of evolution was around since the 1930s. However, the "selfish gene" concept extends that view considerably and places the gene firmly as the target of selection, the whole basis of Hamilton's work and later Dawkin's claim. We are now getting into the science but it is important for context. By the by, the gene as the target of selection is largely rejected by modern evolutionary biologists, it is the whole genotype in the context of its environment (the phenotype), or more simply the organism, that is selected. So, not alone is Dawkins wrong in claiming another scientist's ideas, his science (and Hamilton's) is wrong by today's standards.

Citing someone's work in the field is not enough. Using the language and ideas invented by another author also needs to be acknowledged. Nobody used the term "selfish gene" before Hamilton, that is the point. Hopefully robinich can give an updated view on this.

"This book should be read, can be read, by almost everyone. It describes with great skill a new face of the theory of evolution." W. D. Hamilton, "Science."

You'd think he'd have a problem with it if you weren't, you know, wrongly accusing him of plagiarism.

Joe_Christ

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond but taking credit for someone else's ideas is actually taken quite seriously in science and many other fields.

I have not been proven wrong as I have clearly agreed from the outset that Dawkins credited Hamilton's research in the field, along with many other scientists prior to Hamilton and Dawkins. That's not the point, if you care to actually read my posts and try and understand the issue.

Yes it is but in the end of the day it's a few well of scientists arguing over who came up with what. My point is that's all it is. I'm not seeing any dangerous ideas that are going to do any damage here.

I'm sorry but there is no issue here! You said it perfectly Dawkins credited Hamilton for his input. If I want to write a book about dropping stones am I not allowed to name the book gravity?

nagirrac wrote: »

I actually agree regarding many organised religions, but replacing one set of illogical, inaccurate and dangerous ideas with a set that is even more illogical, inaccurate and dangerous is my humble opinion not a good thing for society in the long run.

I will have to come back to this but will be happy to share my opinions later.

I suppose that's what it is in the end of the day. Your humble opinion.

Sarky

But he's been dead for 13 years keane2097! And anyway it's irrelevant because of reasons! Pathetic epic fail etc.

keane2097

Sarky wrote: »

But he's been dead for 13 years keane2097! And anyway it's irrelevant because of reasons! Pathetic epic fail etc.

What difference does that make? He had ample time over 30 years - as did everyone else - to point out any plagiarism. After forty odd years, some gob****e called Mike Sutton decides to redefine plagiarism and slap it as a label on Dawkins.

That's grand like, whatever floats your weird little boat, but I think the fact that a book that's been around since the '70s and is one of the most celebrated in popular science has avoided any accusations of plagiarism - including by the alleged victim who spoke of it in glowing terms - until, literally and laughably, three weeks ago makes it pretty much dollars to donuts that we've got a begrudger making stuff up.

There's no point to me having written any of that, a look at any dictionary will tell you that citation and plagiarism don't work together. The argument is garbage.

darjeeling

nagirrac wrote: »

Of course Dawkins had to acknowledge Hamilton and many others, his books are entirely based on their work. That's not the point I was making however. I am referring to Dawkins' failure to give credit to Hamilton for coining the term "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene.

The facts are that Hamilton presented a paper in 1969 (published in 1971), which used the phrase "selfish gene" for the first time in scientific literature, proving him to be the originator of the phrase and the concept of the selfish gene. The phrase was later taken up by two other authors (Alexander and Cambell, in separate publications) before Dawkins used it as the title of his book. The point is that Dawkins has never acknowledged Hamilton in print as the originator of the phrase or concept of the selfish gene.

For someone who has has had a bash at me in the past for plagiarism, I am amazed you are not similarily outraged by Dawkins shameful "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions".

You quote someone on the internet as posting in a blog that Hamilton originated the phrase and concept of the 'selfish gene' as used by Dawkins. You repost the blog's claim that two later authors used the phrase before Dawkins. However, the blog points out that they used the phrase in a different sense to Dawkins - that of a gene for selfishness.

The question is, have you looked at the original source to see if Hamilton uses the phrase 'selfish gene' in the same sense as Dawkins? Or have you just accepted the blogger's interpretation? Rather than do this, I looked up the original Hamilton paper and found that he too was talking about a gene for selfish behaviour - i.e. not using the term 'selfish gene' in the same way as Dawkins.

Dawkins and Hamilton were colleagues at Oxford. Dawkins cited and championed Hamilton's work. He organised Hamilton's memorial service. When asked, in 2010, to nominate someone on the Radio 4 'Great Lives' programme, Dawkins chose Hamilton. Clearly the two got along well, and there is no suggestion that Hamilton felt that Dawkins had plagiarised him.

Geomy

Had some laughs reading the last few pages,jez some of ye guys really do worship these scientists like they are demi gods lol

I looks like sheep mentality all following those nutty professors like people following nutty priests...



Then just over some selfish gene comment.....

Give the guy a break he doesn't deserve that