Den själviska genen : [en sociobiologisk studie]

by Richard Dawkins

Blurb

Den själviska genen är Richard Dawkins första och mest kända bok. Den första utgåvan kom 1976. En utökad men i övrigt oförändrad version gavs ut 1989. Ytterligare en engelsk utökad version gavs ut år 2006 i samband med bokens 30-årsjubileum.
I boken lägger Dawkins fram sin tes att evolutionen bör förklaras som resultatet av selektionen av gener snarare än selektionen av organismer eller grupper av organismer.
Boken väckte en del reaktioner bland annat för att den tolkades som ett försvar för egoism hos människor på individnivå. Det var emellertid inte författarens avsikt att försvara sådan egoism.
I denna bok introduceras begreppet mem.

First Published

1976

Member Reviews Write your own review

Box304

This book is well written and makes a lot of good arguments and scenarios. I do like the author and wanted to make that point before starting. However, this book falls short in many regards. The main problem is that arguments based off of fictitious numbers will always support he who made the argument in the first place (since he chose these fictitious numbers). Ultimately, these arguments are extremely poor unless one elaborates extensively on why the numbers were chosen (which the author here does not). Another issue which I have is that author takes a few jabs at Christianity over the translation of a few words (which is another extremely poor argument). Here is the problem: take a look at the book entitle "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. If one were to attempt to make an argument against Christianity, one should attempt to refute the types of claims Lee makes in this book. You see in order for an argument to be effective one must make that argument at the underlying base as a whole in order to qualify the whole entire argument as ineffective. Attacking an argument not at the base, but at the "fingertips" with trying to attack translations (which are widely accepted as accurate) is an extremely poor argument. For instance, if I were to attack evolution (as being an origin of life theory), I would simply state that "Evolution" does not provide a rationality for how matter came into existence. This would be an argument at the base as to why "Evolution" (as an origin of life theory), is not a good theory at all (because at it's core does not explain anything at all or offer up any sort of explanation as to where matter came from). If I were to attack Islam, I would make remarks such as 1) Muhammad changed text in what was the Bible (which Revelations says not to do) 2) Muhammad claimed to be greater than Christ, who claimed to be equal with God 3) Muhammad led Holy Wars for personal gain (an attack on the prophets Character) 4) Muhammad married a wealthy widow (here seeking only personal gain) 5) Muhammad married many women (here seeking personal pleasure over the Lord) 6) Christ's followers claimed Christ resurrected from the dead, and Muhammad is still dead There are other arguments which can be made, I'm just making the point that these arguments are at the base of what the religion/theory is teaching, and that is how an effective argument is formed.

0 Responses posted in August