Re: [Marxism] What Science Books Accessibly Present Evolutionary

[Joonas Laine <jjonas@xxxxxx>]

> I'd be curious to know what you found inspiring about the
> Dawkins works you mention. Dawkins is fantastic on questions
> of science versus superstition (see his latest Devil's
> Disciple, his interviews on the web, etc.). But Gould and
> Eldredge (the latter most effectively) have criticized his
> reductionist (as opposed to hierarchical, structured)
> approach when it comes to evolutionary theory.

i've heard some of the criticisms, though i'm not that well read on the
topic that i would have an understanding and an opinion about them

i haven't read any gould, but again i'm aware of some of the criticism
that i think dawkins and some others have against him. this awareness is
not very coherent, and i'm afraid i won't be able to defend my
impressions in a scholarly debate

i think one point is the so-called spandrel question, and another is the
punctuated equilibrium question. of these two i'm much more interested
in the former

to me it seems dawkins describes well the logic of evolution in 'the
selfish gene' for example, though his language in the book may be too
wild and enthusiastic (which he regretted in the foreword of the 2nd
edition, given what he saw as serious misconceptions of what he was
trying to say in how the book was received) and further expands on that
in 'the extended phenotype', i.e. how the smallest unit of evolution is
not the species (i.e. that evolution would be directed towards the
"survival of the species"), nor the individual ("the survival of the
individual"), but the gene

i don't know if this is seriously controversial, or generally accepted.
if someone has detailed insights about this, i'd be interested to hear
them

anyway, the gene as the centrepiece of evolutionary change was a kind of
revelation to me. dawkins was the first author that i read on
evolutionary biology, so that probably has had a strong effect

but i'm no "dawkinist", and have no interest (nor ability) to defend his
views per se. as i said i'm not that well read that i would be aware of
what his possible reductionist sides have led to in terms of theory; the
allegations may well be true.
but i have to form my opinion based on what i know, and if that is
little - the worse for me. i'm open to detailed criticisms

personally i am interested in how our evolutionary past and our
adaptatations due to that particular past are bound to have an effect on
what kind of society we live in. (so far i see no reason to think that
our genetic characteristics would somehow make socialism impossible.)
but i have the feeling that very often in marxist literature there is no
consideration of what kind of repercussions this might have on human
social behaviour - the stress is always on culture and on how it is
culture that shapes it. of course it does, and culture is all the more
important if we are engaged in politics. but i think that our genetic
heritage sets the stage for what kind of behaviour can be expected. to
me it seems that much of that logic is just taken for granted and not
dealt with explicitly

this is not an expert's view on these discussions, but it's an
impression based on what i've read

--
jjonas @ nic.fi


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism