In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done.
Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken?
Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.
Also, the stuff on evolutionary stable strategies is very insightful and lucidly explained.
This part is worth noting:
I would not venture such strong criticism of a great scientist were I not in good company. The Wilson thesis is based on a 2010 paper that he published jointly with two mathematicians, Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita. When this paper appeared in Nature it provoked very strong criticism from more than 140 evolutionary biologists, including a majority of the most distinguished workers in the field. They include Alan Grafen, David Queller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Michod, Eric Charnov, Nick Barton, Alex Kacelnik, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Geoffrey Parker, Steven Pinker, Paul Sherman, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Stephen Emlen, Malte Andersson, Stuart West, Richard Wrangham, Bernard Crespi, Robert Trivers and many others. These may not all be household names but let me assure you they know what they are talking about in the relevant fields.
I was in a closely related field, and I'm familiar with the work of Cosmides, Tooby, Pinker and a few others. I also knew their students and saw how the sausage is made.
In my experience, Wilson is right. Many of these labs were not doing science. They were doing advocacy, and it showed in the way they designed studies and shelved data.
Not long after I was in school, major labs pushing this approach at Harvard and Yale had major data manipulation scandals.
Independently of this, they also had an animus against statistics that I don't think is befitting of an empirical science.
I haven't read the Wilson, Nowak, and Tarnita paper so I can't comment on it.
But from what I saw of this camp, I would be very skeptical of an appeal to authority.
The bit I quoted is, and it's not trying to hide the fact. It's saying these prominent researchers disagree with the paper. I don't see any problem with that.
But that's just one part of his response, and the rest isn't just an appeal to authority.
> I’m reminded of the old Punch cartoon where a mother beams down on a military parade and proudly exclaims, “There’s my boy, he’s the only one in step.” Is Wilson the only evolutionary biologist in step? Scientists dislike arguing from authority, so perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the 140 dissenting authorities. But one can make a good case that the 2010 paper would never have been published in Nature had it been submitted anonymously and subjected to ordinary peer-review, bereft of the massively authoritative name of Edward O Wilson. If it was authority that got the paper published, there is poetic justice in deploying authority in reply.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...
That's not accurate description of the status of the debate.
Some share it, but nothing seems to have been come of it after the debate.
The critics argue that Nowak and his colleagues make an unwarranted distinction between inclusive fitness and natural selection theory, and assert that inclusive fitness has been quite valuable. They stress that inclusive fitness ideas have helped yield insights into many biological phenomena, such as why social insects have skewed sex ratios. "Their announcement of the demise of inclusive fitness is wrong," says STRI's William Wcislo. "They've done a service in a sense: [Their paper] forced people to again rethink something, and it's quite clear that the evidence in favor of Hamilton's theory is quite convincing."
What do you mean by "that kind of thing"? Searching for " conversation with Daniel dennett" returns more appearances, on podcasts, with Dawkins, with W.V.O. Quine, with Sam Harris. Dennett is a big self-promoter even by the standards of academic celebrities.
Dennett and Pinker are both massively overrated and past their sell-by dates IMO. But instead of having a substantive discussion that might enrich this thread you seem to be intent on low-effort idle speculation about what kinds of public appearance Dennett might or might not be keen on. It is exasperating.
Now to find a good video of him fighting it out over his 'multiple drafts' theory of mind.
Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...
Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and what is informing that sentiment.
Note, I am not stating he is not a gadfly. He is, absolutely. But is he wrong?
>The trouble with Taleb isn't that he's an asshole—he is an asshole. The trouble with Taleb is that he is right.
Love that!
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...
There's no modeling of the Wilson argument that is then proven to be wrong.