THE SOLITARY SELF: DARWIN AND THE SELFISH GENE

Mary Midgley and Gerry Fodor are both renowned philosophers, but both are also deeply concerned with the constructs and procedures of Natural Science as they are understood both by practitioners and non-specialists alike. The principal focus of both books is a concern with the way in which the views of Richard Dawkins and the school of Neo-Darwinist followers seem to have taken over the public view of what Science stands for. Neo-Darwinist (ND) is a term for those who seem to claim that Darwin advocated 'natural selection' as the sole functioning process in evolution. Adaptationist is another descriptor. Darwin's own writings refute this viewpoint. Mary Midgley trawls the original writings of Charles Darwin to show how the reductive individualism that Dawkins now presents as Darwinism does not derive from Darwin but was clearly described by Thomas Hobbes in the early days of the Enlightenment. A life of total independence and self-interest, argues Midgley, is not a realistic aim for homo sapiens. The Selfish Gene idea, that all life is simply a conflict between individuals, is not seen in Nature. In fact, Darwin states clearly that humans, just like all other animals, are designed to interact with one another and with the complex ecosystems of which we are a tiny part. The bonds of dependence are lifelines to continued existence, not just tedious restraints on the reality of independent life. Midgley then analyses the Neo-Darwinist arguments and demonstrates the that they do not satisfy even the logical rules which they are supposed solely to depend on. She also sketches the development of Hobbesian thought, which was in the beginning meant to be satirical, through to the sadly limited views of Nietzsche, which relate closely to the selfish gene idea. And they led the obsessive Nietzsche only to existential loneliness. We all need healthy individuality and connection with community. Gerry Fodor's title, 'What Darwin got Wrong' may be incorrect, since Darwin actually spoke firmly against Natural Selection as the only force in evolution, but the rest of the book provides a solid refutation of Neo-Darwinism. Fodor places B.F. Skinner's learning theory of the 50s beside Dawkins' thesis, and shows a close correspondence. But Skinner has long been found wanting, and those reasons apply equally to ND. Fodor also quotes from a rich variety of recent work in biology to provide counter-examples to Dawkins' over-simplifications. He then moves into detail and queries the cognitive logic of the ND view. Evolution is many-levelled, there is not one level of explanation, and there can be no general theory: 'selection for' is never satisfactorily defined. And using 'fittest' without specifying a time scale is meaningless. All in all, a very rough job. In my view, both books do an efficient hatchet job on Dawkins and the views of related Neo-Darwinists. But both books also discuss much wider concerns relevant to our Network. The type of argument advanced by the Neo-Darwinists has been debated by philosophers for a long time, and has been dispatched, but this has not reached the attention of the public nor of scientists in general. Essentially the NDs adopt the thought processes of the 'hard' sciences, that is, progress through constructing a theory (model), and then searching for proof of the predictions of that theory in the real world. And the NDs, among others, try to impose this rather limited process on the life sciences, and even on the whole of human endeavour. The fundamental method of this (untrue) ideal of 'scientific' research is always the same. A real-world situation is modelled in a vastly simplified form, expressed in mathematical terms. The model is investigated by rational/logical processes and some implications are worked out. The implications in the model are then transferred back and interpreted into the real-world situation. Fodor shows in detail why this method is not valid in the vastly more complex world of life forms. Contrary to Dawkins, other informed biologists such as Steven Rose argue that life depends on the elaborate web of interactions that occur within cells, organisms, and ecosystems, and in which DNA has but one part to play. Fodor's book also provides the rare opportunity to read the reviews of previous editions in the present book and to see the author's replies to many of their criticisms. Both Midgley and Fodor no doubt hoped to spark off a serious discussion of their views. But on reading reviews by Neo-Darwinists, I find that the NDs are so strongly committed to a belief in their own version of Natural Selection that there is little chance of this. It proves difficult to find on the Web any serious discussion of either book, or even of the different viewpoints. Comments are generally limited to simplistic abuse and the denying of any understanding to the other side. I have looked at the published views of several principal 'researchers' in this area, which are hostile in a similar way. In fact, many NDs have got mixed up with Dawkins other crusade, the promotion of atheism, whatever that may mean. He believes so much in his own superb rhetoric that he transfers his own reductionist beliefs to every area of human endeavour: philosophy, religion, ethics. I can appreciate why the NDs are angry. Many have built whole careers in academia on Dawkins' sandy foundation, and it is hardly surprising that they should get touchy when tides of criticism are about. Cold water is not good for their own foundations either. But in fact, many of their complaints against Fodor are quoted and answered in his book. Strangely, I believe that Dawkins and other Neo-Darwinists are in fact deeply religious in a fairly primitive sense. They invoke magic frequently. Genes are the unquestioned Words of their God, and their first commandment is 'The gene is our God, and there is none other' However, while denying any purpose in creation, they themselves write with an all-compelling purpose, to promote the truth of their story. And they rely on their so-called rational arguments as the only way of proving anything. But as we have already discussed, this requires the unquestioning acceptance of the rules of logic, and then the belief that a transfer of these results from their simple mathematical logic model should remain 'true' in the vastly more complex real world. We know that this is hardly likely. And finally, a strange situation. From his own teachings, it appears that Dawkins the person and each of his followers must not be accused over any of the theories appearing under their names. As Dawkins says, we can dance only to the tune of our genes. So it is not the Neo-Darwinists speaking, nor even 'the beer', but their genes only. How sad, as such independent champions of unfettered truth, to have forced themselves into such a limited and meaningless role.

Notes: See http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/ for a crusading coverage of the triumphs of the troops for Neo-Darwinism. For a book review see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/why_evolution_is_true.php For a blog by a true believer, see http://www.ngasal.com/4531/why-evolution-is-true-by-jerry-coyne-aai-2009.html #