Happy Dawkins Day!

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

Pherekydes

Some bizarre stuff there. Exactly who worships these scientists? Who's following nutty professors? Who are these nutty professors? Why are they nutty? And who's getting emotional? Frustrated, maybe, but not emotional.

nagirrac

darjeeling wrote: »

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./QUOTE]


So, you accept that Dawkins "borrowed" the phrase "selfish gene" (Hamilton was the first to use it in the literature), but your argument is as he used it in a differnet context to Hamilton, then that is OK. Utter rubbish, contradicted by Dawkins himself. Regarding the two meanings of "selfish gene", you may be interested in what Dawkins himself has to say on the subject, where ironically he rails at someone for the same offense I am pointed out he is guilty of.

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/mol-evol/1993-March/000781.html

Dawkins: "If I am right in my view of life, they (the two meanings) will eventually collapse into the same meaning". Why would they collapse into the same meaning, unless Hamilton's ideas and Dawkins' ideas are the same? Of course they are the same, Dawkin's entire book The Selfish Gene is based on Hamilton's lifetime of work, and the work of others. In terms of original work, Hamilton is an absolute giant in the field of evolutionary Biology and Dawkins is a nobody. Dawkins should be credited quite righly for popularizing the science and for his excellent writing in a style that non -scientists can understand.

There is absolutely no issue with Dawkins writing a popular science book based on the work of others, lots of writers do the same. He should have acknowledged that the phrase "selfish gene" and the concept of the selfish gene came from Hamilton. His introduction would have been a good place for this. The fact that he allowed the myth of the "selfish gene theory of Dawkins" to go unchallenged for 30+ years is regretable.

Whether Hamilton objected or not, whether they were friends or colleagues or not, whether Hamilton is alive or dead, is all irrelevant.

nagirrac

Geomy wrote: »

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

Give the guy a break he doesn't deserve that

Thanks for the support Geomy but water off a duck's back.

Small correction though, not "these scientists" in a general sense, only scientists that are politically active in the war against religion. Quite hilarious to see the ranting when St. Richard is questioned, a bit like a cult really. One would almost believe Atheism to be a religion :rolleyes:

Joe_Christ

Aaaaaaaand we're done here folks :rolleyes:

uncleoswald

nagirrac wrote: »

Quite hilarious to see the ranting when St. Richard is questioned, a bit like a cult really. One would almost believe Atheism to be a religion :rolleyes:

So the defining aspect of a religion for you is "ranting"? You don't seem to hold religion in a very high regard I must say.

nagirrac

uncleoswald wrote: »

So the defining aspect of a religion for you is "ranting"? You don't seem to hold religion in a very high regard I must say.

Certainly not the ranting part:)

Anyway, in the spirit of the upcoming forgiveness themed weekend, I will raise a glass to Richard tonight, the greatest friend anyone with even a smidgen of spirituality could ask for. Long may he rant.

joseph brand

nagirrac

Great movie, Kate was sinfully lovely.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Whether Hamilton objected or not, whether they were friends or colleagues or not, whether Hamilton is alive or dead, is all irrelevant.

So whether or not he was considered to have plagiarised by his peers or the person you think he stole from is not relevant?
I think the only thing you think is relevant is whether or not you can use it as a stick to beat your target with...

mohawk

I read once that Darwin plagiarised Wallace. Nagirric I am going to follow your lead and get all worked up about it. :pac:

With regards to Dawkins I can take him or leave him. Personally his books aren't for me but its good to get the science out to general public.