Word: emmerichs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Emmerich brings Dawkins to task for speaking as if genes were conscious, scheming entities. Dawkins does so, but he also consistently reminds the reader that this is just a metaphor that he uses to elucidate the phenomena he is discussing. At one point he admonishes himself and the reader "not to get carried away with subjective metaphors." I suppose if Dawkins had been acquainted with the average Crimson writer he would have put a large sign on the book saying "WARNING: Metaphors contained within. Those who have trouble distinguishing between concrete and figurative language should avoid this book...
...selfish, in the particular and welldefined sense in which he uses the word. Any student who has progressed beyond a superficial understanding of natural selection can understand what Dawkins is driving at. They might not agree, but they would not produce the distorted, fanciful account of the book that Emmerich has dreamed...
There are several other weapons Emmerich has in his arsenal. He cites Dawkins' use of an analogy he borrows from a science fiction story, without explaining why and how Dawkins used it in the slightest. After doing so he uses this analogy to poke fun at Dawkins. This is a nifty technique for making someone look bad but it isn't very helpful to those who want to know what the book is about...
...Emmerich claims that Dawkins "can't admit that cultural and environmental factors also affect behavior." Hogwash--Dawkins would hardly be qualified to lecture at Oxford if he were that stupid. His book is not about culture--it is about natural selection and genetic behaviorism. He is not denying the existence of human culture, he is simply discussing a factor which goes into the making of culture. Admittedly, he is giving this factor a far greater causal role than it has ever been credited with in the past. But isn't this what scientific debate is all about? Many folks were...
What all this comes down to, though, is Emmerich's last three paragraphs. This whole debate is shaping up into one more in the "man is the center of the universe" series. Copernicus got it, Galileo got it, Darwin got it. Anyone who dares to suggest that the universe is not divided into three parts--matter, life, and Man, with Man at the top--is accused of the most dreadful heresy...