tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30148381.post8052039334122571149..comments2008-02-05T20:50:41.678-05:00Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30148381.post-1379997148034871682008-02-05T20:50:00.000-05:002008-02-05T20:50:00.000-05:00Hi Jos,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, I’m glad you liked it.<BR/><BR/>“"What I am advocating is not... a hypothesis which can be verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its predictions" [Extended Phenotype, p1, (1981)].”<BR/><BR/>Interesting and yet not surprising. This does however go further to demonstrate how those such as Dawkins have taken to the pulpit so to speak. I find it sad when that he fails to realize that he does not do his vocation any good when conducting himself in such a manner; just as those religious representatives do when they try to pass themselves off as serious scientists. <BR/><BR/>I have had a gander at your blog and on many levels we see things in a similar fashion. That’s not to say that I’m a Christian as you, yet I do insist that it is both naive and unfortunate that many scientists feel that it is important to their understanding that they omit the why from their considerations. I suppose you also know that according to the most recent surveys your scientific specialty is the most likely of all of the scientific disciplines to think this way. The ones still most open to such consideration being mathematicians. I find this all quite ironic and yet understandable at the same time.<BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>PhilPhil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30148381.post-7748833217483326472008-02-05T09:41:00.000-05:002008-02-05T09:41:00.000-05:00Nice article. One interesting thing about Dawkins writing is that the scientific content of "The Selfish Gene" is more than a tad wishy washy, and his central idea (i.e the gene-centric hypothesis) is philosophical, not scientific, as he himself admitted when he wrote:<BR/><BR/>"What I am advocating is not... a hypothesis which can be verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its predictions" [Extended Phenotype, p1, (1981)].<BR/><BR/>It's a shame that he has become synonymous with evolutionary biology, because he does great damage to more serious debates.Jos.http://jos-knotsuntied.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com