Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
On Dawkins
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By the way, people should be aware of the following.
Dawkins hasn't done any pioneering science in a long time. His major work, the "selfish gene" has in large part been debunked.
It's complex and difficult to explain quickly, but in a nut shell: Dawkins misunderstood and denies the existence of contemporary evolutionary theories of group selection including genetic altruism. Basically, potentials for behaviors which are shared by a group, and which may only manifest occasionally in individuals, for the benefit of the group, even including altruistic sacrifices whereby the individual expressing the gene may not personally reproduce, or it may manifest after they reproduce. However, the trait i.e. shared potential for the altruistic behavior, still exists in the group and is thusly selected via the group's survival as a consequence.
Part of Dawkin's mistake is simply due to his era. Prior to recent genetic discoveries due to better technology, and prior to good field observations of higher primate social behavior, genetic plasticity and the large role it plays in evolution was unknown. His era presumed that genes once mutated generally manifested in individuals who were then selected thusly i.e. selfishly.
Evolution lacking plasticity and group selection also failed to explain the rate of human evolution in the observed time frame, which ironically gave ammunition, for a few decades, to Young Earth Fundamantalists against evolution and dating methods. The term "selfish gene" was also seized upon by Social Darwinists to promote laissez faire and often predatory ideology. Social Darwinism of course has nothing to do with evolution or Darwin, who directly controverted and derided them for abusing his name and work.
That placed Dawkins in the awkward position of having Social Darwinists claim he'd validating various ruthless ideologies, while compassionate fundamentalists claimed evolution was wrong because it denied the existence of altruism, and even some Fundamentalist Social Darwinists managed to claim that biological evolution was wrong, but that Social Darwinism was the only evolution they believed in. :rolleyes:
Another problem is Dawkins' propensity for self promotion and inflammatory language, such as "selfish gene" and his militant zeal for atheism. Which has been unappreciated and criticized by many serious evolutionary biologists and atheists.
Dawkins' mistakes in his scientific career and as an advocate of atheism, may be due in part to personality and temperament. His propensity for charging ahead even into the unknown without prudence, is exactly what you want in a pioneer. But they do tend to charge off cliffs a lot too.
-
cool article
[Read the article: Still has a mouth, and still must scream]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was a good article. Interesting, not attempting to be PC or pandering. Just an interesting story about an interesting character and an introduction to his work which the reader may or not explore further.
Why doesn't Salon have more good articles like this?
-
thank feminism for failing to weed out the kooks in thier midst.
[Read the article: Have you ever left your toddler in a car?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Lloyd neglects to mention is that the hysteria around family/child issues has been stoked by the rather intellectually sloppy approach many feminists have taken, encouraging a degree of zeal which leads directly to such over reaches. By partnering with religious fundamentalists for "family focused" legislation feminists have moved further from rational goals towards irrational identity and culture hysteria.
How often have feminist leaders had the integrity and backbone to discourage the more radical elements in their own following? How often have they been willing to caution their own followers: "wait, that's going too far, it's going to backfire."
Lacking the courage to argue for self restraint and integrity, movement feminism has been dominated by demagogues, the angrier and more zealous, the better. It's regularly tolerated for feminists to make crazy comments such as "sex under the influence of alcohol is rape" without the widespread criticism from sane feminists who surely know better, but lack the courage to enthusiastically disagree with the Dworkinites in their midst.
-
-- AlecsMom
[Read the article: Have you ever left your toddler in a car?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hate to tell you this, but the social workers are often the most zealous fanatics. There are plenty of horror stories of over zealous social workers taking people's children due to a CYA political environment, and outright messiah complexes. If a social worker or cop fails to "protect" a woman or child and something befalls them later, even if it wasn't probable or predictable, women's groups and religious groups become lynch mobs. That encourages a maximal approach, extremism, and drives out moderates from the social worker and police profession.
One example posted on Salon told the story of man who was accused of child pornography by a photo-mat worker for pictures of his own children during a camping trip with some innocent nudity. The cops were forced to prosecute the case, and the social workers interview and take his children, in a process that dragged on for months and certainly did great emotional damage to the family. All due to the crazy CYA environment created by the morality mania.
There's been a convergance and partnering between movement feminism, the religious right, the large prison guards union, social workers unions, and various social groups like AA who are generally quasi-religious and cultish.
-
irrational parents and paranoids generally
[Read the article: Have you ever left your toddler in a car?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For all the people bragging they could "NEVER" leave a toddler alone in a car, not even for one minute when they ere a few yards away... what exactly are you basing that on other than totally paranoid irrationality?
Please explain how it's dangerous to have a toddler in a parked car, turned off, in a safety seat, for one minute, when the parent is a few yards away and within eye contact. Such as taking five steps across a 3 meter sidewalk to an ATM.
How is it any more "dangerous" than simply leaving a child in a crib? It's not even as "dangerous" as a toddler walking around the house with a parent close by.
Get a grip. Paranoid and irrational parents aren't doing their children any favors.