Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis | Gould | I 95 Analysis/science/Gould: the fascination that Richard Dawkins's theory exerts is due to some of the bad habits of Western science: atomism, reductionism, determinism; in other words, the notion that wholeness is understood by breaking it down into its "basic" units. GouldVsDawkins: in addition, Dawkins assumes that genes have an influence on the body. Selection cannot see them if they do not translate into parts of the morphology, physiology or behavior that are important for the survival of an organism. Ironically, Dawkin's theory came to light just as pan-selectionist theories were increasingly rejected, according to which all parts of the body are formed in the crucible of natural selection. If most genes fail to be checked, they cannot be the units of selection. >Explanation, >Selection. |
Gould I Stephen Jay Gould The Panda’s Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History, New York 1980 German Edition: Der Daumen des Panda Frankfurt 2009 Gould II Stephen Jay Gould Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History, New York 1983 German Edition: Wie das Zebra zu seinen Streifen kommt Frankfurt 1991 Gould III Stephen Jay Gould Full House. The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, New York 1996 German Edition: Illusion Fortschritt Frankfurt 2004 Gould IV Stephen Jay Gould The Flamingo’s Smile. Reflections in Natural History, New York 1985 German Edition: Das Lächeln des Flamingos Basel 1989 |
| Criteria | Dawkins | I 372 Gene/selection/Dawkins: Under reasonable consideration, selection does not directly affect the genes. The DNA is spun into proteins, wrapped in membranes, shielded from the world and invisible to natural selection. (Like >GouldVsDawkins.) The selection would also hardly have a criterion for DNA molecules. All genes look the same just like all tapes look the same. Genes show in their effects. - ((s) Effect makes identity and difference.) |
Da I R. Dawkins The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 German Edition: Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996 Da II M. St. Dawkins Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, Oxford/New York/Heidelberg 1993 German Edition: Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993 |
| Darwinism | McGinn | II 98 Design argument/William Paley: organisms have a brilliant design: We have not designed them, so we have to assume that a foreign intelligence did it. Let us call this intelligence "God". So God exists. DarwinVsPaley: intelligent design does not require a Creator. Selection is sufficient. Mind/Consciousness/Evolution/McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness - nor sensations. >Evolution, >Consciousness. II 99 Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained through the means of Darwinian principles and physics, because if selection were to explain how sensations are supposed to be created by it, it must be possible to mold the mind from matter. II 100 ((s) Consciousness or sensations would have to be visible for selection.) (Similar GouldVsDawkins). >Selection, >Selection/Gould, >Selection/Dawkins. |
McGinn I Colin McGinn Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993 German Edition: Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996 McGinn II C. McGinn The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999 German Edition: Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001 |
| Evolution | McGinn | II 57 Human/Evolution/mind/McGinn: it is a remarkable coincidence that we are the only species on earth that is able to do science and philosophy. There could easily be a different species with a certain level of scientific talent, about the level of a ten year old. Or a species that is superior in biology but inferior in physics etc. The kind of intelligence that we have, is absolutely not necessary for living beings to survive. >Intelligence. II 79 Consciousness/evolution/McGinn: consciousness is not the pinnacle of evolution and also not the most impressive part of organism structures. It is biologically, comparatively simple. It is part of our oldest facilities. (Not self-confidence!). Consciousness is as common as blood and bone: Even octopus need consciousness for the interpretation of what they perceive with their eyes. Consciousness is not a product of culture or civilization. (Self-esteem might be). The problem with consciousness results from our way of thinking, not from the consciousness itself. >Consciousness, >Culture, >Civilization. II 99f Mind/consciousness/evolution/McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness, nor sensation. Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained with the means of the Darwinian principles and physics, because if the selection will explain how sensations are caused by it, it must be possible to shape the mind of matter. ((s) Consciousness or sensation must be visible for selection. (Similarly GouldVsDawkins)) >Selection, >Darwinism. |
McGinn I Colin McGinn Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993 German Edition: Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996 McGinn II C. McGinn The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999 German Edition: Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001 |
| Selection | Dawkins | I 38 Selection/Dawkins: Thesis: Selection occurs at the lowest level. (Not species, not individual, but genes, unit of heredity). >Genes, >Genes/Dawkins. I 42 Selection/Dawkins: Earliest form of selection: simply a selection of more stable molecules and rejecting unstable ones. It would not make sense to shake the right number of atoms and the right amount of added energy to expect a human to come out. The age of the universe would not suffice for that. I 73 Order/ordering: The cards themselves survive the shuffling. Selection/Dawkins: If genes always mixed, selection would be absolutely impossible. I 158 Def Degree of relationship/Dawkins: generation span: steps on the family tree. To Uncle: 3 steps: the common ancestor is e.g. A's father and B's grandfather. Degree of Relationship: per generation span ½ multiplied by itself. For g steps (1/2) g. But that is only part of the degree of relationship. In case of several common relatives they must also be determined. I 158 Selection/relationship/altruism/Dawkins: Now we can correctly calculate the chances for the multiplication of genes for altruism: E.g., A gene for the suicidal rescue of five cousins would not become more numerous, but probably one for the suicidal rescue of five brothers or ten cousins. >Altruism. I 162 Family altruism/Dawkins: parental care is merely a special case of family altruism. The fact that siblings do not exchange genes is not relevant, because they have obtained identical copies of the same genes from the same parents. Family Selection/Kin Selection/DawkinsVsWilson, E.O.: transfers the concept of group selection to family. Now, however, the core of Hamilton's argument is that the separation between family and non-family is not clear, but a question of mathematical probability. Hamilton's thesis(1) does not imply that animals are selfless towards all family members and self-serving to all outsiders. I 164 DawkinsVsWilson: He does not consider offspring as relatives! (I 461: Wilson has now withdrawn that). Def Group selection/Dawkins: different survival rate in groups of individuals. I 164 Kin selection/Dawkins: Of course animals cannot be expected to count how many relatives they are saving! I 462 Kin selection/Dawkins: It is a frequent mistake for students to assume that animals must count how many relatives they are saving. I 165 Kin selection/Dawkins: To determine the degree of relationship actuarial weightings can be used as a basis. How much of my wealth would I invest in the life of another individual. I 166 An animal can behave as if it had done this calculation. E.g. just as a human catches a ball as if he had solved a series of differential equations. I 372 Gene/selection/Dawkins: Under reasonable consideration, selection does not directly affect the genes. The DNA is spun into proteins, wrapped in membranes, shielded from the world and invisible to natural selection. (Like GouldVsDawkins.) The selection would also hardly have a criterion for DNA molecules. All genes look the same just like all tapes look the same. Genes show in their effects. ((s) effect creates identity.) 1. Hamilton, W.D. 1964. The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior. In: Journal of Theoretical Biology 7. pp- 1-16; 17-52. |
Da I R. Dawkins The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 German Edition: Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996 Da II M. St. Dawkins Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, Oxford/New York/Heidelberg 1993 German Edition: Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993 |
| Selection | Gould | I 52 Selection/Darwin/Gould: I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the only means of change. I 94 Selection/GouldVsDawkins: if the selection directly affected a gene responsible for body strength when favouring a stronger body, then the theory of Dawkins could be justified. If bodies were unambiguous location maps of their genes, then the fighting parts of DNA could show itself outwards and the selection could have a direct effect on them. But bodies are not built that way. There is no gene for such unambiguous parts of morphology as the left patella or a fingernail. Hundreds of genes contribute to the structure of most body parts and their action is channelled through a kaleidoscopic series of environmental influences, through embryonic, postnatal, internal and external influences. Body parts are not simply transferred genes, and the selection is not even directed at certain body parts! It accepts or rejects whole organisms. II 19 ff Selection/Gould: if natural selection drives evolution by keeping preferred variants from a spectrum that is randomly distributed around an average value, a lack of variation will drive this process out of the way. Because natural selection does not produce anything itself. Against it: II 21 Sexual reproduction: sex creates a huge range of variations by mixing the genetic material of two individuals. Question: but why do the males have to be almost as big and complex as females? Darwin has shown that the natural selection is a battle between individuals, therefore, to pass on as many genes as possible. Since males are indispensable because of the sexual reproduction that the variation must guarantee, they become independent tools of evolution. They are not created for the benefit of their species, as independent tools they intervene in the struggle in their very own way. II 22 When fighting for females, heavyweights simply have a better chance. Combat avoidance strategies can be added to complex organisms. II 51 Selection/Gould: Gould is directed against the assumption of a consistent selection, i. e. the assumption that there is an effect of selection on each level at the same time, or the theory that every detail that can be found on an organism results from the selection. Each individual behavior may be a wonderful adaptation, but it must be shaped within a prevailing limitation. II 173 Selection/Gould: Gould suggests recognizing the selection (not evolution) on several levels. >Evolution, >Explanation. |
Gould I Stephen Jay Gould The Panda’s Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History, New York 1980 German Edition: Der Daumen des Panda Frankfurt 2009 Gould II Stephen Jay Gould Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History, New York 1983 German Edition: Wie das Zebra zu seinen Streifen kommt Frankfurt 1991 Gould III Stephen Jay Gould Full House. The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, New York 1996 German Edition: Illusion Fortschritt Frankfurt 2004 Gould IV Stephen Jay Gould The Flamingo’s Smile. Reflections in Natural History, New York 1985 German Edition: Das Lächeln des Flamingos Basel 1989 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dawkins, R. | Gould Vs Dawkins, R. | I 94 GouldVsDawkins: genes are not visible for selection (only individuals are) so the selection does not respond to them. I passim Richard Dawkins Thesis: genes are the relevant units of selection, GouldVs. VsDawkins: starting with Butler's famous aphorism Z "a hen is only the special way in which an egg produces a second egg". GouldVsDawkins: there is a fatal flaw in Dawkins' attack on Darwinian theory: no matter how much power Dawkins wants to attribute to the genes, he cannot give them one thing, namely direct visibility in the process of natural selection. I 94 GouldVsDawkins: he will have to use other metaphors. He will have to come back to the fact that genes gather, make alliances, respect each other, join a pact, and explore a possible environment. But we call the object composed of them a body. VIII 434 GouldVsDawkins: the theory of the selfish gene and the selfish DNA are very different. According to Dawkins, the genes increase in frequency because they have effects on the body - but the DNA for exactly the opposite reason, because they have no effects! VIII 372 Gene/Selection/Dawkins: on reasonable consideration, selection does not directly affect the genes! The DNA is spun into proteins, wrapped in membranes, shielded from the world and invisible to natural selection. (Like GouldVsDawkins.) Selection would also hardly have a criterion for DNA molecules. All genes look the same, as all tapes look the same! Genes show their effects! |
Gould I Stephen Jay Gould The Panda’s Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History, New York 1980 German Edition: Der Daumen des Panda Frankfurt 2009 Gould II Stephen Jay Gould Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History, New York 1983 German Edition: Wie das Zebra zu seinen Streifen kommt Frankfurt 1991 Gould III Stephen Jay Gould Full House. The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, New York 1996 German Edition: Illusion Fortschritt Frankfurt 2004 Gould IV Stephen Jay Gould The Flamingo’s Smile. Reflections in Natural History, New York 1985 German Edition: Das Lächeln des Flamingos Basel 1989 |
| Evolution Theory | McGinn Vs Evolution Theory | II 99 Mind / consciousness / evolution / McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness! Also, not sensation. II 100 Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained by Darwinian principles and physics , because if the selection explained how sensations are caused by it, it must be possible to mold the mind from matter. ((s) Consciousness or sensation should be "visible" for selection!. (Similar GouldVsDawkins)). |
McGinn I Colin McGinn Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993 German Edition: Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996 McGinn II C. McGinn The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999 German Edition: Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001 |
| |||