Thanks for the pointer to Buranyi on evolutionary biology and whether there's a need for an "extended evolutionary synthesis". Indeed, it's a fair overview -- describes honestly the positions of different participants.
But what on earth induced you to call Dawkins a "media savvy blowhard"? No such thing -- he's a really significant scientist. Probably the two most important extensions since the "modern synthesis" of the 1930s are both down to Dawkins. (Gene's eye view, and extended phenotype.)
Since Dawkins had the temerity to write some home truths about religion, there's been a sustained campaign to paint him as somehow a nasty personality. A common strategy, when you can't argue with the substance. Don't be misled by that.
(And for what it's worth, I'm on the side of what Buranyi calls the traditionalists. The complications cited by the wannabe revolutionaries are mostly not new, are not excluded by the modern synthesis, and are just complications or elaborations you would go into depending how important they were in particular situations. For example developmental plasticity -- it's just nonsense to say this doesn't get a mention in undergrad level teaching.)
Dawkins can be a really significant scientist if you like. Have you read Mary Midgley's responses to his biology. I also tried to say what I dislike about him in the piece of mine I linked to.
I did read some of Midgley at the time. Recollection is vague, but it seemed to me there was no substance to her. She seemed to be saying that genes couldn't be selfish because only individuals (maybe only conscious individuals) could be selfish. So she wasn't coming to grips at all with Dawkins's careful explanations in what sense genes could be interpreted as selfish. Plus she was strangely abusive -- very odd that she thought she was in a position to lecture Dawkins about not understanding biology
In my mind (and I think for most evolutionary biologists) Dawkins's selfish gene is very far from gene-reductionism. It's basic to Darwinism that what matters is what works. Effectiveness of whole organisms or whole communities in the real world is what gives sensible structure to the living world. (As you remark, an invisible hand very like Adam Smith. Lots of small firms in very unforgiving competition, oligopolies and tax breaks and price-fixing don't come into it really.)
Dawkins's idea is to count up real-world effectiveness at the level of genes rather than of individuals or species. Genes form coalitions (more or less temporary) within any one individual, but the same gene is also distributed in other individuals and other species. New coalitions of genes are formed by a wide range of mechanisms (mutation, recombination, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, symbiosis) over varying time scales. There are a variety of quite interesting phenomena that make sense on the basis of maximizing total gene count but not on the basis of survival and reproduction of individuals. So the "selfish gene" idea is really a considerable broadening of the range of processes that evolutionists take into account, not a narrowing.
Thanks for the pointer to Buranyi on evolutionary biology and whether there's a need for an "extended evolutionary synthesis". Indeed, it's a fair overview -- describes honestly the positions of different participants.
But what on earth induced you to call Dawkins a "media savvy blowhard"? No such thing -- he's a really significant scientist. Probably the two most important extensions since the "modern synthesis" of the 1930s are both down to Dawkins. (Gene's eye view, and extended phenotype.)
Since Dawkins had the temerity to write some home truths about religion, there's been a sustained campaign to paint him as somehow a nasty personality. A common strategy, when you can't argue with the substance. Don't be misled by that.
(And for what it's worth, I'm on the side of what Buranyi calls the traditionalists. The complications cited by the wannabe revolutionaries are mostly not new, are not excluded by the modern synthesis, and are just complications or elaborations you would go into depending how important they were in particular situations. For example developmental plasticity -- it's just nonsense to say this doesn't get a mention in undergrad level teaching.)
Thanks Mark
Dawkins can be a really significant scientist if you like. Have you read Mary Midgley's responses to his biology. I also tried to say what I dislike about him in the piece of mine I linked to.
I did read some of Midgley at the time. Recollection is vague, but it seemed to me there was no substance to her. She seemed to be saying that genes couldn't be selfish because only individuals (maybe only conscious individuals) could be selfish. So she wasn't coming to grips at all with Dawkins's careful explanations in what sense genes could be interpreted as selfish. Plus she was strangely abusive -- very odd that she thought she was in a position to lecture Dawkins about not understanding biology
Didn't find the link you refer to, probably I haven't got the hang of this substack thing yet. A bit of googling turned up https://clubtroppo.com.au/2019/12/24/the-poverty-of-intellectual-correctness-part-one-neo-darwinism/, which possibly was the piece you meant?
In my mind (and I think for most evolutionary biologists) Dawkins's selfish gene is very far from gene-reductionism. It's basic to Darwinism that what matters is what works. Effectiveness of whole organisms or whole communities in the real world is what gives sensible structure to the living world. (As you remark, an invisible hand very like Adam Smith. Lots of small firms in very unforgiving competition, oligopolies and tax breaks and price-fixing don't come into it really.)
Dawkins's idea is to count up real-world effectiveness at the level of genes rather than of individuals or species. Genes form coalitions (more or less temporary) within any one individual, but the same gene is also distributed in other individuals and other species. New coalitions of genes are formed by a wide range of mechanisms (mutation, recombination, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, symbiosis) over varying time scales. There are a variety of quite interesting phenomena that make sense on the basis of maximizing total gene count but not on the basis of survival and reproduction of individuals. So the "selfish gene" idea is really a considerable broadening of the range of processes that evolutionists take into account, not a narrowing.