3 ms·

>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years" Certainly! I think his biology writing is ter

>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years" Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time. On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.

netcan 17y ago
Atheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way. Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate. This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates. This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued. The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book. In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins. #Now we are the ones being shrill. [edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources. I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler. Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course. I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation. No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
  - netcan 17y ago
    1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg. " 2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses. 3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc. *This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad. Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss. This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.
caf 17y ago
Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil". In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our genome are really only in the method of propagation each is targetting - viruses are no more "evil" than the genes for blue eyes are. I would also refer you to the part where Dawkins says that a complete genome can be regarded as a massive colony of viruses. It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as "evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  "Malicious" then, or "malignant", if not "evil. >"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?" Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. >"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea." Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis. (If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.) At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...

netcan 17y ago

Atheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way. Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate. This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates. This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued. The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book. In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins. #Now we are the ones being shrill. [edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"

jacoblyles 17y ago
The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources. I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler. Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course. I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation. No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
- netcan 17y ago
  1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg. " 2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses. 3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc. *This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad. Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss. This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.

caf 17y ago

Hold on a moment, he never calls any mind-virus (or any virus at all) "evil". In fact he points out that the differences between biological viruses and our genome are really only in the method of propagation each is targetting - viruses are no more "evil" than the genes for blue eyes are. I would also refer you to the part where Dawkins says that a complete genome can be regarded as a massive colony of viruses. It is clear that declaring viruses (whether of the biological or mind type) as "evil" is to engage in silly anthropomorphism.

jacoblyles 17y ago
"Malicious" then, or "malignant", if not "evil. >"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?" Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. >"Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea." Mr. Dawkins could not be more clear with his connotation.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>Indeed, what chance has she? Mr. Dawkins speaks as if being a Catholic is equivalent to being dead. Well, Dawkins doesn't believe in brainwashing defenseless children to believe things without testable basis. (If you consider that a strange position, well... it do say something.) At least these days, the kids probably don't have a large risk of getting mental problems for life by being sexually abused by the religious teachers...