>In July 2017 a poll to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Royal Society science book prize listed The Selfish Gene as the most influential science book of all time.
After reading this I thought I should read this book. It may be influential, but the book was trash. Reading pop science instead of science is like reading quotes from philsosophers instead of books.
Don't read this book
t. religitard
Maybe you should have looked up the definition of influential first, influential doesn't necessarily equate to good.
Having said that I don't know whether it's good or not, I haven't read it.
The Red Queen by Matt Ridley comes close to this one.
>0 reading comprehension
I want to read pop philosophy now
at least the movie was good
name a single thing about the book that isn't good. All the most prominent academics of the time responded to it as though it were an academic paper
netflix adaptation fucking when
It's only influential because of the overwhelming proliferation of memes and meme culture
user I literally was holding this in my hand at the library an hour ago wondering if I should pick it up for reading
like everything he says except the speculative chapter on memes is entirely true, and nobody can argue with it, he goes even further in depth in the extended phenotype on the subtleties of the concept, but the basic outline in the Selfish Gene is completely right, and I wonder what exactly you guys are not agreeing with.
The unit of replication is the gene and not the individual, that is the thesis of the book, and I would like to see your arguments to the contrary, or why you think the book is too reductive.
>All the most prominent academics of the time responded to it as though it were an academic paper
Are you retarded? It didn't bring anything new; it was just an overview of gene-centred view of evolution, and it was not written in an academic form to be considered an overview paper. It was never meant to be treated as an academic paper; why the fuck would academics treat it as such? It was just meant to be bring insights to the masses and get people into evolutionary biology.
>name a single thing about the book that isn't good.
Everything is bad. He doesn't clearly present the assumptions and limitations of the theory, it's not clear what's established by academic conensus and what are just his thoughts, he regularly wanders off in fields he has no idea about (ethics, AI, game theory, metaphysics, etc.), he doesn't miss an oppotunity to be opinionated and throw in predictions, personal agenda and viewpoints, and he has no self-awareness about his ignorance in literally anything else that is not evolutionary biology. Even in terms of genetics, his definition of gene is very peculiar.
It's just a trash book from a conceited author who knows much less than he relises, and it's a waste of time. If you want to learn about the gene-centred view, you're probably better off reading an actual paper. And there's plenty of cricisima around it anyway.
We don't know anything about OP's religion or lack thereof but you've just outed yourself as an atheist.
>no
>No
>NO NO NO
>NO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE DADDY DAWKINS
>I WON'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HIGHER GROUND, YOU R-RELIGITARD
I agree but find the meme chapter very insightful also. Great book 5*****
>like everything he says except the speculative chapter on memes is entirely true, and nobody can argue with it,
Many can argue with it en.wikipedia.org
What on earth
If you read any of the philosophy that the fucknuts on here bleat about, you already do
worldscientific.com
If you want to learn about """the selfish gene theory"""" read this instead of Dawkins
Actually try to argue against one of the points in the book.
>en.wikipedia.org
>Gould
Charlatan of the highest order. Absolutely dishonest fucktard who has lied about anything at all that contradicts his political beliefs.
Actually try to explain a criticism of the selfish gene theory, go on.
Don’t post abstracts
Even so why would anyone read a paper that is simply a derivative of dawkins? If you want to read about selfish gene theory but are too in thrall to Yea Forums to read the best book on the subject, read wd hamilton or george williams
Explain the concept in clear terms
Or Trivers
It’s a shame that the differences between the two were presented as a rivalry. They admired each other and agreed on more than they disagreed. Dawkins spoke very graciously when gould died.
I dislike Gould for reasons largely not related to the disagreement with Dawkins but he had the same basic inability to be honest in his arguments with him. Of course Dawkins wasn't a dick about him publicly when he passed.
Indeed yes. But he did rather piss on his chips with his support of epstein
Random vs non-random
What should I read instead?
Is Dawkins an actually good scientist in his field and he only becomes incredibly retarded when he departs from it like Chomsky or is he just an idiot all around?
How does that relate to the unit of selection? The link you posted is written in incredibly vague terms and just mentions speciation. Does the unit of replication stop being the gene when speciation occurs? What are they saying, summarize it.
OK i read the paper. It's terribly written but I think I get what he's saying, and it's about a kind of meta-view of evolution that shows how the physical circumstances of individuals affects sexual reproduction, especially when leading to speciation. That isn't changing the basic system of gene as unit of reproduction, that's just looking at how evolution works on a more abstract level, which Dawkins does plenty of.
>simply a derivative of dawkins
You're truly braindead
Why would I do that? I'm not criticising the gene-centred view, I'm criticising the book. Do you have some sort of mental problem?
Nice sperg out. The guy you replied to also might be an agnostic, just saying, retard.
>SEE THE PICTURE OF THE BOOK?
>ARE YOU LOOKING?
>HERE'S THE NAME OF THE BOOK
>AND THE AUTHOR
>NOW DON'T READ THIS!!!
why don't you also ask everyone not to imagine an elephant? I see your game, OP, and yes, I just added this to my "to-read" list, thanks