Richard Dawkins' Early Work

[John Hewitt]

I have recently been looking up a few things about Richard Dawkins. As I do so, I notice that most biographers tend to begin with "the selfish gene," only briefly mentioning his academic career prior to that point. As a result, I am experiencing a little difficulty finding out about about the scientific work he did as a PhD student with Tinbergen and his subsequent work in Berkeley, as an assistant professor.

Does anyone know of the details of his work during that time? Pdfs of the scientific papers would be nice!

 

[DC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography#Academic_papers

but finding free versions of older publications seemed a bit tricky.

 

[John Hewitt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography#Academic_papers

but finding free versions of older publications seemed a bit tricky.

That's terrific - you must be better at finding these things than me. I'm a tad surprised at how little earlier work he had published but I guess that must be it.

Nonetheless, pdfs of the early stuff would still be gratefully received if anyone has them!

 

[DC]

That's terrific - you must be better at finding these things than me. I'm a tad surprised at how little earlier work he had published but I guess that must be it.

Nonetheless, pdfs of the early stuff would still be gratefully received if anyone has them!

yeah actually i was also a bit suprised that i didnt find anything as free pdf. i searched about 6 papers title and found all 6 from the usual sources that want money but often you find the paper on the university's or institute's website. but not in this case. but i usualy search for recent papers and mostly in connection to climatology, but even paper from 1938 i was able to find for free

 

[John Hewitt]

I did find a copy of Dawkins CV on the net - he put it there. There are two or three other early papers in that, but all in the same animal behavioural vein as the other stuff.

I too find it surprising one can't get the pdfs of the net, but should anyone around have an athens login - you know.

What I would like to understand is how Dawkins came by this rigid commitment to gene-centred evolution and I don't see the connection between that and the animal behaviour he actually studied.

 

[DC]

have you tried to ask him?

 

[John Hewitt]

have you tried to ask him?

No - oddly enough I haven't, I have just tended to assume that but, to be honest, I have no really good reason to do so.

My experience of the heights of British science is that they do not like to engage with me, or give the "oxygen of publicity" to my views. Historically, they have preferred censorship and lies. That may have something to do with my willingness and desire to point out the error of their ways.

However, Dawkins hasn't been one of the people I have been dealing with in that respect, though he does seem quite censorious of other people. However, you point is a fair one and it would be sensible just to write to him and see if I get the papers back.

 

[Reality Check]

My experience of the heights of British science is that they do not like to engage with me, or give the "oxygen of publicity" to my views. Historically, they have preferred censorship and lies. That may have something to do with my willingness and desire to point out the error of their ways.

That sounds like the sour grapes or conspiracy theory themes that we see from cranks all of the time.

British (or any) scientists are not obliged to engage with anyone just because they exist. They tend not to waste their time with cranks.
I suspect that contacting Dawkins will result in you being ignored if you make it all about your views. A polite request for a list of his earlier work should work but is not guaranteed to give you free access to the papers. But you may be lucky - he may have them already available somewhere.

British (or any) science journals are not obliged to publish any non-sceince that is submitted. The peer-review process is designed to winnow out the chaff. If you cannot convince a couple of reviewers who know the subject area that a paper is valid then your paper is very probably wrong.
That may have everything to do with your willingness and desire to submit non-science to journals !


Your views seem to be only in a main web site with a rant about the sceintific comunity in another site, a 10 year old paperback (priced at ~31 pounds!) and forum postings and so are beyond oxygen deprived - they are dead. Thus any "oxygen of publicity" will not resurrect them.

 

[catsmate]

That sounds like the sour grapes or conspiracy theory themes that we see from cranks all of the time.

British (or any) scientists are not obliged to engage with anyone just because they exist. They tend not to waste their time with cranks.
I suspect that contacting Dawkins will result in you being ignored if you make it all about your views. A polite request for a list of his earlier work should work but is not guaranteed to give you free access to the papers. But you may be lucky - he may have them already available somewhere.

British (or any) science journals are not obliged to publish any non-sceince that is submitted. The peer-review process is designed to winnow out the chaff. If you cannot convince a couple of reviewers who know the subject area that a paper is valid then your paper is very probably wrong.
That may have everything to do with your willingness and desire to submit non-science to journals !


Your views seem to be only in a main web site with a rant about the sceintific comunity in another site, a 10 year old paperback (priced at ~31 pounds!) and forum postings and so are beyond oxygen deprived - they are dead. Thus any "oxygen of publicity" will not resurrect them.

Wow, that's a lot of woo...... With more on his other websites.

 

[Dubious Dick]

No - oddly enough I haven't, I have just tended to assume that but, to be honest, I have no really good reason to do so.

My experience of the heights of British science is that they do not like to engage with me, or give the "oxygen of publicity" to my views. Historically, they have preferred censorship and lies. That may have something to do with my willingness and desire to point out the error of their ways.

However, Dawkins hasn't been one of the people I have been dealing with in that respect, though he does seem quite censorious of other people. However, you point is a fair one and it would be sensible just to write to him and see if I get the papers back.

Out of interest, have you had any peer reviewed work published?

 

[John Hewitt]

Out of interest, have you had any peer reviewed work published?

For the record, more than a dozen - after all, I did work on the Cambridge faculty. There is a brief biography in the preface to "A Habit of Lies" as well as summaries on my other sites.

My work on evolutionary theory was not performed within a scientific institute and I see no reason to publish it in the scientific literature. Indeed, I think such a study would be rejected simply because it did not come from an institute. There is no point banging one's head on a brick wall like that. However, my views on evolution are not generally regarded as woo, not even on this forum.

I merely hold that evolution is most fundamentally described as a data process, rather than a genetic process. Thus the gene formats some of the data in nucleic acid base sequence and leaving genetics as simply a special case of evolution. That seems to me a perfectly obvious and correct statement but it does significantly alter the practical and structural implications of evolutionary theory. I develop that perspective through bioepistemic evolution, which you can read about on "evolution and origin."

My interest in Dawkins is that his work has become the standard bearer for gene-centred evolutionary theory and I want to explore how and why such an erroneous perspective could have become so dominant. It seemed to me that his early work might be informative in that respect and hence my inquiries.

 

[Reality Check]

My interest in Dawkins is that his work has become the standard bearer for gene-centred evolutionary theory and I want to explore how and why such an erroneous perspective could have become so dominant. It seemed to me that his early work might be informative in that respect and hence my inquiries.

Science does not have standard bearers. Dawkins is merely the person who popularized the concept of gene-centred evolutionary theory 13 years after it was proposed:

The view of the gene as the unit of selection was developed mainly in the works W. D. Hamilton,[4][5][6] Colin Pittendrigh[7] and George C. Williams.[8] It was later popularized by Richard Dawkins in his books The Selfish Gene (1976)[9] and The Extended Phenotype (1982).[10]

The gene-centered view of evolution became dominant beause it works at least as well as the organism-centered viewpoint adopted historically by biologists.

 

[Reality Check]

Out of interest, have you had any peer reviewed work published?

Hi Dubious Dick:
You may want to read John Hewitt's A Habit of Lies to get a taste of his thought processes.
Basically he sent some emails to biologists and instutions abut his Surf-riding model for cell capping, did not agree with some of the replies, seems to think that he has the right get a reply and comes up with

This site is about the way scientists cheat, by falsifying the scientific literature and rigging debate to include and acknowledge only "acceptable" opinion.

One reply summerizes the situation in 1991 quite well:

I have now had the opportunity to look into the matters raised in your letter and have seen the relevant correspondence. Dr. Mark Bretscher's letter to you of the 19th. of July seems to me to crystallise very well the essence of the problem, namely that yours is but one of a number of models proposed about capping and particle movement on amoeboid cells and that the field is therefore in a state of flux. The difficulties in securing hard evidence for any of the theories mean that conflicting views are inevitable. As Dr. Bretscher points out, it is not so much a case of your work being rejected by others, simply that you are no longer in the field to fight your corner actively.

Biology is by definition a fast moving science and all researchers, no matter how talented, have to accept that what is fact today is likely to be superseded by tomorrow's breakthrough. I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.

ETA: Capping was still unresolved in 2007, Recap on Cell Migration (2007)