Amazon.com
Is our tendency to "fix" our bodies with medicine keeping them from working exactly as they're supposed to? Two pioneers of the emerging science of Darwinian medicine argue that illness is part and parcel of the evolutionary system and as such, may be helping us to evolve towards better adaptation to our environment.
Book Description
The answers are in this groundbreaking book by two founders of the emerging science of Darwinian medicine, who deftly synthesize the latest research on disorders ranging from allergies to Alzheimer's and from cancer to Huntington's chorea. Why We Get Sick compels readers to reexamine the age-old attitudes toward sickness. Line drawings.
Customer Reviews:
What's for dinner?.......2007-09-02
"If you are starving in a rain forest, eat the camouflaged frog that is hidden in the vegetation, not the bright one sitting resplendent on a nearby branch."
At first glance, this quote from WHY WE GET SICK wouldn't seem to be relevant to the topic. But since the hypothesis of the book is that evolution and natural selection govern the senescence of aging and the physiological responses to diseases and mortally competitive environments, the fact that the gaudier frog has evolved with potent internal poisons that (should) signal "danger" to any potential predator makes the connection vis-a-vis both the amphibian's toxin and the starving hiker whose internal defense mechanisms may at least cause vomiting and diarrhea if frog's legs make it onto the dinner menu.
As authors Randolph Nesse and George Williams summarize:
"First, there are genes that make us vulnerable to disease ... Most deleterious genetic effects ... are actively maintained by selection because they have unappreciated benefits that outweigh their costs ... Second, disease results from exposure to novel factors that were not present in the environment in which we evolved ... Third, disease results from design compromises, such as upright posture with its associated back problems ... Fourth, ... natural selection ... works just as hard for pathogens trying to eat us and the organisms we want to eat. In conflicts with these organisms, as in baseball, you can't win 'em all. Finally, disease results from unfortunate historical legacies ... the human body must function well, with no chance to go back and start afresh ... Susceptibility to disease ... cannot be eliminated by any duration of natural selection, for it is the very power of natural selection that created them."
Under the umbrella of natural selection, the authors include everything from the obvious and non-arguable, such as fever as a mechanism to kill invading pathogens with heat, to the less obvious and perhaps debatable, such as the instinctive desire of small children to remained unweaned from mother's breast, which serves to prolong lactation and ensures that Mom won't become pregnant with a potential rival. Other examples fall into the category, Gee, Why Didn't I Think of That, including the morning sickness of pregnancy, which serves to prevent Mom from ingesting toxins during that vulnerable period when the unborn child is experiencing peak organ formation, and the causative agent of gout, uric acid, the build-up of which also protects the body from the aging effects of oxidative damage. Then there's cancer, which wouldn't be a problem had we not tissue cells that grow and regenerate. And did you know that premature ejaculation in the male is ostensibly selective, in an evolutionary sense, for those men that can get the gene transfer job done, so to speak, and then flee before the female's alpha male partner shows up to brain the interloper with a knotty pine cudgel?
Nesse and Williams lucidly present an unconventional paradigm of medicine, a different perspective from which to view disease and aging, that's only accasionally preachy. They rue the fact that it's not part of the mainstream, and argue for its inclusion in the curriculum of the country's medical schools. They fail to mention what I think is the more practical route to widespread acceptance, i.e. when it can make the medical industry lots of money.
Hey honey! How about some frog legs for dinner? I see a bright green one with yellow and red speckles perched in the carrotwood out back!
Really great read.......2007-01-09
Anyone in interested in how evolution impacts their day-to-day lives should read this book. It's not only informative, but also an enjoyable read.
A fresh and innovatrive approach.......2006-03-22
Insightful, progressive, meaningful, and comprehensive coverage of the field. I learned a lot from the book. Few minor points that can be improved. One, the figures in the book (there are only a few anyway) are vague and don't add much to the content. Two, there are many sentences in the book that are either out of context or they don't convey what the authors have in mind. Third, the book could have benefited from a bibliography. Alphabetical bibliography is easier to use to look the sources up than to struggle to find them in the Notes section at the end of the book. But, overall, a great book.
EVOLUTIONARY MEDICINE.......2006-02-26
Why we get sick is great for explaining evolutionary medicine for first timers. It's great for students, classrooms and anyone interested in Evolutionary medicine.
Outstanding introduction to a perspective on health you won't get from your doctor.......2006-01-02
This is a very readable, intelligent introduction to a perspective on medicine that is very useful for those of us who recognize that we have to manage our own medical care. It provides us with a basis for asking questions about the recommendations that doctors make. Those recommendations can be short-sighted. Most medical schools have not provided doctors with a useful evolutionary perspective on disease and medicine. The evolutionary perspective is simple enough for an intelligent lay person to grasp and use and novel enough to give insights that most doctors will not be able to provide.
Together with some knowledge of psychosomatic medicine (also neglected in most doctor's education) evolutionary medicine can give a patient sound footing to formulate a holistic perspective on health that few doctors will provide. Unlike holistic perspectives based on, say, Chinese medicine, this kind of perspective is more directly and obviously scientifically based. Accordingly, it is more likely to help a patient earn the respect of doctors that is needed for them to accept the patient as a full partner in the diagnosis and healing process.
Book Description
Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.
Customer Reviews:
A skeptical, analytical philosopher takes on Darwin, Dawkins.......2007-10-02
"[Stove] is particularly good at exposing the `amazingly arrogant habit of Darwinians' of `blaming the fact, instead of blaming their theory' when they encounter contrary biological facts. Doctrinaire Darwinists have an answer for everything, always a bad sign in science, since it means that mere facts can never prove them wrong." - from Roger Kimball's Introduction
It is not at all the case that Stove objects to Darwinism on religious grounds, in fact he believes that present life has by some means evolved from earlier forms; however he is quite certain that "Darwin's explanation of evolution, even though it is . . . still the best one available, is not true." Stove would object, and strongly so, to having his essays cast as being sympathetic to `creationism' or `intelligent design', as he defines himself as a man "of no religion." His knowledge and scholarship of Darwinian theory is self-evidently vast; he suggests that he has "wasted" his time reading hundreds of Darwinism's books and `Darwinian Fairytales' makes it quite evident that he has indeed studied every prominent Darwinian "from 1859 to the present hour."
I had just begun reading Richard Dawkins' `The Blind Watchmaker' when I noticed that David Stove's `Darwinian Fairytales' had been reprinted. While reading them both it quickly seemed imperative that I read Dawkins' `The Selfish Gene' before proceeding with either TBW or DF. So that is what I did. Reading the three books in close conjunction was quite a fascinating experience, and, as I have indicated elsewhere (my review of TSG), Dawkins didn't fare to well.
Stove, the late Australian philosopher of science, effectively skewers Dawkins (especially TSG, but, to a lesser extent, TBW as well), Stove nails E.O. Wilson too, in fact he takes a troupe of Darwinian champions to the woodshed -- T.H. Huxley, R.D. Alexander, R. Trivers, R.A. Fisher, among many others. A skeptic in Hume's mold, Stove has acerbically critiqued various iconic founts of Western thought, some more effectively than others, so Darwinians need not feel singled out (but of course they probably will). This book was his last, completed not long before his death in 1994.
Although he presents a few other criticisms, Stove relentlessly targets (1) Darwinism's ideological death-struggle with "altruism" -- that it must deny is actually altruism, and (2) Darwinism's non-falsifiable teleological doctrine: the immutable Lordship of "the selfish gene" -- a doggedly fideistic article of simple faith. Darwinism's teachings on altruism are easily sacked, both by clear logic and by mere empirical evidence; its supposedly anti-teleological teleology of itself qualifies Darwinism as being a religion.
If there is something to be faulted in Stove's book (a collection of 11 essays), it is the repetitiveness (not surprising as this is usually a problem in works of argumentation). Long after he has defeated the teleological and "altruism" defamations of Dawkins, Wilson, and the like, he is still throwing the badly bloodied doctrines to the ground. Because of this, and because each of the essays can more or less stand on its own, I recommend reading the first essay (Darwin's Dilemma), the second and the last (eleventh) before heading into the others. If the essay (#4) treating the influence of Malthus' population dynamics on Darwin's thought becomes dry or uninteresting, then skip it, perhaps moving to essays #9 (A New Religion) or 10 (Paley's Revenge, or Purpose Regained).
This is not what I expected.......2007-05-13
I barely read into the book when I realized that the author is still a true believer of the Darwin fairy tale. It was painful for me to do, but I threw the book in the trash today. Next time I'll be more careful.
The H.L. Mencken of sociobiology.......2007-04-04
David Stove is one of the great underappreciated writers of the late 20th century. He's also dead, which doesn't generally do much for one's ability to slay dragons. It is fortunate the good people at the New Criterion have more or less sponsored his revival; he deserves to be much more widely known. Stove was an Australian academic philosopher who became embroiled in a university in-fight against what I like to call, the "know nothing academics" who came to prominence in the 1960s. Know nothings essentially make their livings making rasberry sounds at Western civilization. Stove was outraged such people could be taken seriously by anyone, and so he devoted a large amount of his considerable remaining wit and energy making such people miserable. This book represents one of his efforts in that direction. Contrary to what many people are saying in the reviews, Stove explicitly believes in Darwinian evolution, "more or less." I.e. he states that he believes in the broad strokes of evolutionary theory. He is, as others have stated, an atheist (as am I, if that matters to anyone).
He very specifically doesn't believe in nonsense views of evolution; in particular, the "hard man" view of Herbert Spencer or its intellectual descendant, the "selfish gene" view of Dawkins and company. Stove ruthlessly mocks the preposterous premises of these ideas (which even a 'good' Popperian would instantly recognize as non-falsifiable piffle), simply by examining them for what they really are. He also points out numerous giant conceptual lacunae, counterfactuals and the examples of flat out nonsense that make up the evidence for sociobiological "theory." Why does Stove do this? Apparently, he was ahead of his time. People like Dawkins have become pervasive pests; insisting that everyone think as he does, or risk being labeled, "unbright." Sociobiological 'theoretical' deconstructings of literature have become all the rage. Dawkins and his unseemly ilk need to be put in their place, along with other pseudo-scientific charlatans like Lysenko or the Phrenologists. Sociobiology is a shabby set of shaggy dog stories; Stove shows us how funny and absurd they really are. I rather wish Stove was a statistician as well; that would be the final cherry on top of the sociobiological humble pie, but I suppose one must leave work for future thinkers.
Stop misunderstanding texts!.......2007-04-02
This text does not attempt to show that Darwinism is false, at best it succeeds in showing that certain applications of the theory are incorrect.
Evolution is not a "religion for adults" - it is a complex theory that should not be debated by those who do not know it. Simply because there exist statements about the theory (or statements made by the proponents of the theory) that are perhaps false, does not mean the entire theory is.
Has anyone heard of Richard Dawkins? He clearly showed how evolution can and has created cooperative systems.
Everyone - please educate yourselves from a well-balanced mix of texts, understand what the author's points are, and more importantly, reason about what is said - there are authors that care more for the money made from publishing a book, than the honest science and research that should go into it.
enjoy the ride.......2007-02-07
Modern "scientists" have elevated evolution to a cult. Enter intelligent design (ID) critics, whacked on by their roots with creationists (their own pre-Socratics), and you have one helluva fight. With these ideologues migrating to extremism and away from reason as understood by both scientific method and Aristotelian logic you are bound to have very murky waters indeed. The debate becomes unrecognizable to the classically educated.
Enter the reasonable atheist apologist for no side with whom people of faith (like myself) and no faith (like my friends) can wholeheartedly cheer on by anchoring the conversation in reason once again. The late David Stove does just that, with precision, wit, logic, clarity, and joy. Reading this book is like a breath of fresh air, and restores faith in human reason and the ability of thinkers to expose unsupportable extremes cloaked in unearned authority, whether it is "science" or "religion." A marvellous book which will have ideologues steaming and truth lovers and sideline quarterbacks enjoying the game.
Amazon.com
Nearly a century and a half after Charles Darwin formulated it, the theory of evolution is still the subject of considerable debate. Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins is among Darwin's chief defenders, and an able one indeed-- witty, literate, capable of turning a beautiful phrase. In River Out of Eden he introduces general readers to some fairly abstract problems in evolutionary biology, gently guiding us through the tangles of mitochondrial DNA and the survival-of-the- fittest ethos. (Superheroes need not apply: Dawkins writes, "The genes that survive . . . will be the ones that are good at surviving in the average environment of the species.") Dawkins argues for the essential unity of humanity, noting that "we are much closer cousins of one another than we normally realize, and we have many fewer ancestors than simple calculations suggest."
Book Description
How did the replication bomb we call "Life" begin and where in the world or rather, in the universe, is it heading? Writing with characteristic wit and an ability to clarify complex phenomena (the The New York Times described his style as "the sort of science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius"), Richard Dawkins confronts the ancient mystery. "Dawkins is above all a masterly expositor, a writer who understands the issues so clearly that he forces his readers to understand them too. River Out of Eden displays these virtues to the full." --New York Times Book Review "Dawkins has gone to the heart of his subject and presented it with energy, insight, verve." --Los Angeles Times "[River Out of Eden] abounds with metaphors that make things brilliantly clear....an excellent introduction to many important evolutionary ideas." --Nature
Customer Reviews:
Good Read.......2007-02-04
I enjoyed the writing style and flow of this book. It was a nice read.
Ehhh.......2006-12-31
Excuse the low score. I will come to that, later. Overall, this book is not bad. It's actually quite good. It covers a wide range of topics in average detail. What do you expect from a 160 page book?
I gave it a mediocre score because the book covers topics that Richard has already explained in other books. It felt as though Richard wrote this book just to make money. All he did was rewrite his ideas, change the analogies, and write it real quick. Also...his writing wasn't on par. It didn't flow and didn't contain the usual humor that Richard presents.
Conclusion: If you have two days to read one of Dawkins books, read this. This should be the only circumstance in which you should read this book.
I recommend read 160 pages of The Blind Watchmaker instead of this book. You'll get ALOT more out of it.
DNA just is and we dance to its Music.......2006-12-26
As mentioned in other reviews of Dawkins's books I enjoy his writing and his passion for explaining science to the general public in an understandable way. I have given this book 5 stars because of the way he explain his arguments... although I don't agree with them. Now for a reply which is divided into the following parts:
1. Good Explanation of Mitochondrial Eve
2. Evolution in small Gradations: No Evidence forthcoming
3. Darwin's Argument from Personal Incredulity
4. God's Utility Function and the problem of Ethics
5. Question for Darwinists/Atheists
1. Good Explanation of Mitochondrial Eve
River Out of Eden is an addition to his ever-growing collection of fine books. This talks about DNA and genetics. For someone who is not a scientist this is a good introduction into genetics. He also explains very well the concept of the Mitochondrial Eve and that she would have been an ancestor of humans in the female line (as opposed to a common ancestor). Dawkins also explains there are other ways of being descendents, and that the mitochondrial ancestry is just one of many. This should put to rest any attempts by Creationists (by this I mean those of the Christian Protestant ilk... see my review of Dawkins's book, `An Ancestors Tale - A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life'. I myself am a Theist of the Islamic ilk) to infer that Mitochondrial Eve is in fact the Eve of Adam.
2. Evolution in small Gradations: No Evidence forthcoming
The Chapter on, `Do Good by Stealth' is an attempt to answer a letter sent to Dawkins by a Theologian. He delves into evolution in small gradations and cites a couple of examples to explain his understanding:
a) The evolution of the bee dance:
Dawkins explains in detail about the dancing of bees based on Von Frisch's ideas and how they are related to the location of food. He says that the dancing we see today may be an end product of intermediary dances that evolved into what we see today. This may be true and it will be accepted by all (Creationists) that behaviour can evolve. But the citation of the possible evolution of the dance sequences is not evidence that intermediary species existed. We may also track the changing dance sequences/styles of human beings from 1700s to 2000 and notice changes in the way people danced. There may have been intermediary dance sequences that led to what we have today, alongside the evolution of music. Behavioural evolution of human dance sequences does not explain nor suggest that there were intermediate species between our supposed common ancestors and homo sapiens. I understand why Dawkins cites the bee dance, it is an easy way to explain evolution, but as I say we have to distinguish between behaviour and speciation.
b) Nilsson and Pelger Computer Simulation:
Dawkins cites the two scientists who ran computer programmes that simulated the evolution of the eye. I am always sceptical about citing computer simulations as a way of explaining evolution in small gradations (fast-forwarded through programming) directed by natural (in this case artificial) selection. As the reader will note that programmes, algorithms etc. do need to be programmed in order to generate `random' events. The scientists start from a single cell... which is a given. Dawkins rightly points out that the complicated mechanism of the single cell itself is out of the equation so this somewhat simplifies the evolutionary simulation. Dawkins also used a simulation which he explained in his book, `The Blind Watchmaker' called the `Biomorph' programme to look at the evolution of simulated fancy-shaped biomorphs. In both examples of computer simulations, there is a programmer to programme algorithms to generate evolution. This glaring drawback is either ignored or acknowledged (in the Blind Watchmaker) but just accepted as given.
3. Darwin's Argument from Personal Incredulity
Dawkins rightly criticises Creationists for their often emotional argument that because the universe is so complicated etc etc that there must be a creator. There is no argument but just emotional nonsense. That is why I agree with Dawkin's coinage of the term `Argument from Personal Incredulity'. However, Dawkins didn't see fit to criticise Darwin for the same argument of personal incredulity. In the beginning of Chapter 4, `God's Utility Function', he cites Darwin who said that he could not persuade himself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed the Ichneumonidae to feed within the bodies of caterpillars'. Atheists also tend to use the Argument from Personal Incredulity, i.e. emotional arguments much like Darwin did. They would ask why disasters happen or children are abused... if God existed He wouldn't let this happen. Same argument but on the different side of the coin
4. God's Utility Function and the problem of Ethics:
In Chapter 4 entitled, `God's Utility Function', Dawkins talks about the utility function (or I prefer to use `purpose') of life. Put it simply of is the survival of DNA. My favourite quotation from Dawkins (out of all the books he has written) is the following one he mentioned at the end of this chapter as it explains Atheistic ethics in a nutshell:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference...DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music".
This quotation provides a huge problem when dealing with ethics. If there is no right nor wrong, no justice and injustice, then by logical extension there is no such thing as a crime only survival of the fittest. Let's take rape. I hope all readers will agree that rape is a crime and is wrong and laws are there to deter men from raping women, and if they do there is a punishment. Using the Atheistic/Dawkins analogy, the act of rape would be the preservation of DNA. It would be a male instinct to procreate and transfer his DNA so that new DNA could be generated regardless of whether the woman wants it or not. Would Atheists accept this type of universe? No they would not and let's be fair to Dawkins, he did deal with the problem of ethics elsewhere. In one of Dawkins's other books (cannot recall which one) he did criticise a scientist (again I have forgotten whom) for suggesting that rape was a survival instinct. Dawkins rightly stated that this should not be accepted. Elsewhere Dawkins said that there are consequences of evolution but we as a species have crossed a threshold where we can revolt against evolution (I am paraphrasing). But this begs the question, if the utility of life is preservation and propagation of DNA, then why revolt against a system which will do exactly that? Why have laws against rape, which is a preservation and replication system for DNA? If there is no right no wrong, no good, no evil then Atheists and Darwinists should not criticise rape. If they do, and rightly they do, then there has to be a problem with the concept of the utility of life being DNA preservation alone... hence a problem with the theory of evolution and natural selection in the absence of a Creator.
Note: I am not using the ethics argument to prove the existence of a Creator. Creationists may do that but my reasoning behind bringing ethics (and the example of rape) is to show the fallacy of the concept of the purpose of life being DNA preservation alone, a universe where there is no evil no consequences. It's something for Atheists and Darwinists to think about.
5. Question for Darwinists/Atheists
This is a general question and not related to this book alone. The idea of evolution is that species would mutate in order to survive changing conditions. Let's assume that bacteria is the first entity on Earth that evolved from single cells after chemical interactions etc. Now the reason for bacteria to mutate into something better (`better' is a relative term but we can use it for this argument where `better' means better survival) is for survival of DNA. A series of mutations and natural selection would make subsequent descendents and species better equipped to survive. Give the Earth billions of years time and what started with bacteria ends up with a multitude of species we see today which have evolved through small steps over geological time. Let's assume that Homo Sapiens, a part of the African Ape species, is uppermost of the evolutionary ladder. In other words, it has reached a survival capability better than when its ancestor started as a bacteria...otherwise there is no point in evolution. With me so far? If we and the rest of the African Ape species are best equipped to survive brought about by millions of years of evolution (mutations and natural selection), why is it that the most populous entities today are bacteria? They seem to have survived without any need to mutate and evolve into complicated descendents. If bacteria are the most populous entities, then why is evolution regarded as a sequence of better mutations (guided by natural selection) that leads to better survivability that has led to species such as Homo Sapiens?
(Ex-Parliamentary Candidate, Conservative Party)
London
UK
Decent Primer.......2006-12-18
Many people have trouble reconciling the complexity of the observed organic world with a simple and mindless process such as natural selection. The trouble derives from an implicit idea, a fallacy of the conservation of complexity, which holds that complex effects must have complex causes. As a result there is a tendency to invoke what Dennett has called skyhooks - imaginary mechanisms (such as an intelligent designer). In this book Dawkins offers a popularized account of natural selection, the only known process which can produce complex functional organizations. The book is aimed at the general reader. Dawkins begins with an overview of the basics of natural selection, showing how each generation acts as a sieve, filtering a "digital river of information" -- namely, the ACGT sequence of DNA.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the world, there has recently been a resurgence of obsolete `arguments' from design and a resistance against the irrefutable facts of evolution. Dawkins successfully tackles many of these so-called arguments and shows how vacuous they really are. Many creationists believe that evolution, proceeding as it does by a process of gradual selection and incremental change, cannot explain certain phenomena in the natural world. Using mimicry as an example, there is no survival advantage to critters that are only one-quarter camouflaged, these creationists say: it's an all or none thing. Dawkins dismantles this `critique' and manages to show its fallacy. But perhaps the paragon example for many creationists is the eye, an organ of extreme complexity, and Dawkins addresses this issue at some length as well. What use is an eye with only half of a functioning capacity? Well, actually, there is evidence that parallels nearly every step of eye evolution: beginning with the simple, light-receiving structures in the limpet to the `pinhole camera' eye of the mollusk, Nautilus, to the image forming lens eye of the vertebrate. Photosensitivity offers a greater survival advantage than no photosensitivity and the ability to detect only blurred intimations of movement confers a still greater advantage. It is only a lack of imagination and thinking that could prevent a person from understanding how, through a process of the intensification of function, the complex mini-computer that is the vertebrate eye could have gradually evolved. Dawkins also reviews the work of Swedish scientists on simulation models of eye evolution whose research has shown that this entire process (from light sensitive sheaths of tissue to image forming visual systems) requires only a few hundred thousand generations - a mere blip on the geological time scale. But the best indicator of possibility is historical antecedent and here it can be pointed out that the eye has evolved along independent lines, at least forty times over. Just because some people find this incredulous doesn't change a thing - arguments from personal incredulity are not valid.
The recent rallying against evolutionary theory and the resurfacing of outdated intelligent design arguments is troubling. This small book should serve as a decent primer for the general reader who wants to become acquainted with the process of evolution by means of natural selection. In the process, the general reader should come to realize that there is no `controversy' at all in the evolution versus intelligent design debate. It is true that the themes explored in the book are explored elsewhere by Dawkins and in a more satisfactory manner, but this is not bad for a quick read.
Another Richard Dawkins book.......2006-08-19
I remember reading a review of a Chuck Norris film many years ago that made the point that Chuck Norris films could only be compared to other Chuck Norris films because all Chuck Norris films were nothing more than Chuck Norris films.
And that's sums up the writing of Richard Dawkins. This book, River out of Eden, is just another Richard Dawkins book that can only be compared to other Richard Dawkins book because its nothing more than a Richard Dawkins book.
So what is a Richard Dawkins book? A collection of interesting stories from biology and chemistry loosely tied around a vague theme. The theme is introduced somewhat early on, but due to Dawkins' penchant for not staying focused, the theme is unstable and ever mutating. The stories are wonderful indeed, and they usually support the theme of the moment. Finally, after several hundred pages of stories and ramblings and changing themes, Dawkins ends the book. Quickly. Done. It's over.
"River out of Eden" is a Richard Dawkins book. Great stories supporting vague themes.
Did you notice how this one ended? A poem and it's over. I said to myself, "What? Where's the rest of the chapter? Where's the conclusion? What the devil was the point of this book exactly?"
Footnote: okay, okay. Not all of Richard Dawkins books are Richard Dawkins books. I have to admit that his recent "The Ancestor's Tale" was better. It actually ended with a bit of a summation. Not much, but a bit.
Book Description
This book shows how Darwinian biology supports an Aristotelian view of ethics as rooted in human nature. Defending a conception of "Darwinian natural right" based on the claim that the good is the desirable, the author argues that there are at least twenty natural desires that are universal to all human societies because they are based in human biology. The satisfaction of these natural desires constitutes a universal standard for judging social practice as either fulfilling or frustrating human nature, although prudence is required in judging what is best for particular circumstances.
The author studies the familial bonding of parents and children and the conjugal bonding of men and women as illustrating social behavior that conforms to Darwinian natural right. He also studies slavery and psychopathy as illustrating social behavior that contradicts Darwinian natural right. He argues as well that the natural moral sense does not require religious belief, although such belief can sometimes reinforce the dictates of nature.
Customer Reviews:
Deeply Dissatisfied.......2007-08-20
I enjoyed reading this book but I was ultimately left deeply dissatisfied. I do not disagree with the basic idea that morality, in the sense of our motivations to be successful social animals, has evolved and is part of our nature and natural desire. Empathy, guilt, shame etc are natural emotions we experience which naturally shape our sociality. Where the argument weakens is around the premise that what we desire must be good. There is a big difference between saying 'the good is desirable' and 'the desirable is good' but Arnhart does not deal with this difference sufficiently. Sometimes he is saying that if something is desired it is desired because it is good, other times he is saying that we often are mistaken or ignorant about our true desires and make mistakes we regret so we have to think in terms of a whole life well lived and simple desire does not show us what is good after all.
Arnhart also aknowledges how there is a natural desire in us to exploit others but he believes this is simply countered by the natural desires of others not to be exploited. It all sounds as if this is the end of the problem, as if no one ends up exploited, as if there can be no need to concern ourselves any further. He takes the examples of female genital mutilation and slavery to show the workings of his argument and how it proves that these two practices are against natural right. Fair enough, but he has chosen two topics about which even ardent misogynists and racists would not bother arguing in favor. There is a noticeable lack of any attempt to show how his argument works with the moral issues over which his readers would actually argue.
We are told that war is natural so there is no need to concern ourselves with morality here either. We are naturally social with respect to our own group and naturally against and in competition with other groups. This conflict turns out to be good, according to Arnhart, because it helps humans as a species to flourish. (Perhaps the losers might disagree if they were able.) Human flourishing is good and for Arnhart that is what we all desire. Arnhart believes there can be no naturalistic fallacy where anything natural is bad and no mismatch between our ('true'?) desires and our human good. Perhaps this is where Arnhart's basic error is situated - in a belief that behavior evolves for the good of the species. This is not how evolution works. It works for the survival of genes in bodies through time and this can work through misery and pain too. And extinction - genes have no magical foresight. Even Arnhart's view that we must think about our desires over a complete life, work out what is right to do, think about consequences etc means we do not just do what our bodies push us to do - we have to recognize the pain our desires can cause to ourselves as well as others and we have to control our own natures.
It generally all sounds so simple. Each individual acts in accordance with their life-time self-interest as a social animal and is naturally bounded by the self-interested behavior of all the other social animals s/he bounces into. But surely, this is what we have always been doing anyway? Yet we've been forever arguing about morality. We've had individuals and groups unable to avoid exploitation. If it is our human good that each human not be exploited then we, as a species, are universally failing in this human end. Has reproductive success really depended on happiness and morality? On happy and moral progenitors?
On the one hand I accept Arnhart's point that what we consider moral behavior has evolved because of our evolved sociality. On the other hand, knowing this does not really change anything. I would be very much interested in the author showing how this view can actually be applied to everyday morality arguments and how it can improve the lives of those humans who are far from flourishing.
Thought provoking, but there are a few annoying problems.......2005-12-24
Darwinian Natural Right, by Larry Arnhart, argues for a moral system in which we should seek to fulfill our natural desires, which exist due to Darwinian natural selection and evolution.
I think it's important to note that in this book Arnhart holds no distinction between statements of nature-what is-and statements of ethic-what ought to be. As such, his arguments tend to ignore this dualism. However, being a person who generally holds this dualism to be true, I found it easier to understand his argument by understanding his claims within such a distinction; the best way for me to describe his arguments is in such a way. His argument acts as a statement of nature in that it says that human beings, as part of their existence, seek to fulfill natural desires. Furthermore, these desires are, at their most basic level, determined by Darwinist evolution. What we typically see as morality, society, and moral sense is in fact the act of human beings seeking to fulfill these natural desires. Arnhart's claim also takes on tones of a statement of ethic, in that he further claims that not all desires are truly desirable; only those that lead to our flourishing are actually desires. He says that we ought to use reason to assess the best ways to fulfill our desires within environmental constraints, and then seek to fulfill them. Finally, he claims that an Aristotelian prudence is required in dealing with conflicting desires and finding the proper balance of desires that produces the greatest good.
Arnhart goes on to elaborate on these claims in ten different chapters. The first chapter deals with the origins of his ideas, a series of claims that he feels best describes his argument, and a series of seven main objections that he discusses at various points later in the book. In Chapter Two he defends the idea that the good is desirable, defends the use of reason to determine the best way to achieve the good, and sets out what he sees as the basic natural desires of human beings. In Chapter Three he defends Aristotle's interpretation that human beings are by nature political animals (political in this case is synonymous with what we now consider social to mean). In doing so, he argues against two of the seven objections: the possible gap between biological instinct and learned behavior, and the objection that biological principles are fixed, and allow for no variability. In the fourth chapter he asserts the existence of natural morality and the Darwinian support for it, arguing against the Is-Ought objection; he also argues against the objection that Darwinism fails to allow for free will. In Chapter Five and Six he asserts the existence and significance of the parent-child bond and the male-female conjugal bond; the parent-child bond acts as the evolutionary origin of morality, and serves to aid reproduction, and the male-female bond satisfies needs of social dominance and stratification. He also claims that any society that lacks both will fail because they cannot handle the emotional frustration that results. In chapter Seven and Eight Arnhart deals with what he sees as the most potentially damaging flaws in his model: slavery and psychopathy. In seven, he claims that slavery is a moral wrong-it is the denial of the desire to be free of exploitation. In eight, he argues that psychopaths must be considered moral strangers, and removed from society. In the ninth chapter he deals with two more of the seven objections: the objection on the grounds that Darwinian evolution requires change, while Aristotelian philosophy seeks stability; and the objection that Darwinism is directionless, which conflicts with the essential teleological nature of Aristotelian philosophy. And in the tenth chapter he tackles the last of the objections: that Darwinian Natural Right denies the presence or need for God.
There are a few problems with the organization and structure of the book. First, Arnhart fails to adequately explain his argument in the beginning of the book. He lists ten premises that form the basis of his argument, but some of the premises don't follow from the ones before them. Furthermore, some of them seem entirely pointless to his argument (I'm specifically thinking of 7 and 8). Later in the book, you discover the reason behind the confusing premises; in fact, they are key to Arnhart's argument. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually make that very clear until chapters 5-7.
The second major problem with the book's structure is that Arnhart habitually changes the context some of his terminology, which in turn changes their definition, and this makes understanding his arguments VERY confusing. For example, at some points he seems to use the word "moral" in a solely traditional context: morality concerns actions that are more than mundane, such as lying, cheating, stealing, etc. However, in other contexts, he uses his working definition of morality, which is defined as whatever the good is (in this case, fulfillment of desire). As such, things others and I might not consider moral, such as eating habits, suddenly are discussed in a moral context. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this definition. The problem comes from Arnhart's habit of changing the definition of "moral." (among other terms)
The final major problem I had with the book is that Arnhart spends quite a bit of time trying to connect his theory to the works of past philosophers. In essence, he tries to show how past philosophers would have supported his theory. There is nothing wrong with this, when the theory is adequately supported. However, Arnhart has a habit of focussing so much on connections to past philosophers that his support for his theory suffers. The section of his book in which he deals with the Is-Ought problem (the Naturalistic Fallacy) is a good example of this problem.
There are two main non-structural objections I have to the book. First is Arnhart's failure to deal with the problem of the falsifiability of natural selection. In DNR, Arnhart lists seven major objections to his book. Pretty much all of these are relevant, and he uses them to bring out evidence in favor of his theory (by the way, he does this very well). However, he never addresses the potential for natural selection to be disproven. Ideally, any scientific theory has the capacity to be shown to be in error--in essence, there is always the possibility that new evidence will show up that will render the scientific theory in question false. Furthermore, to paraphrase Karl Popper, error is manifest. Truth is not. In other words, error is something that can be instantly recognized by human beings. Truth, however, is not (this concept is the underlying premise behind falsifiability).
What does this mean for Arnhart's argument? Well, it means that he's supporting his moral theory from a non-absolute position. That is, he support for the existence of Natural RIghts--Darwinian evolution and natural selection--is not set in stone, or in any way known *for certainty*. Insomuch as Darwinism has the capacity to be falsified, Arnhart's argument has the capacity to be falsified. This seems to be a rather serious problem that I hoped Arnhart would address. He didn't.
The second "non-structural" problem is that Arnhart never really addresses the concept of human rights, and how it plays into his theory. His book, in my opinion, seems to imply that when we determine what the right thing to do is (the best way to fulfill a particular natural desire), we ought to do it. Can we force others to do it? To what extent can we force others to do it? In other words, to what extent can we use governmental and social power to promote this moral theory? Arnhart never touches on this.
Now, don't let my seemingly negative reaction to this book fool you. I did enjoy Arnhart's work. As an athiest and a humanist, I always enjoy reading works that put forth an essentially nonreligious foundation for ethics, and among those available, Arnhart's is one of the best. He provides excellent support and examples for the arguments he covers, and I found his argument against the Is-Ought dichotomy to be the best I have read. While I do hold to that dichotomy, I can't stand it's stranglehold on modern ethics, and Arnhart's willingness to argue against it--and his generally impressive argument--is refreshing. His chapter on parent child bonding is equally impressive and informative.
Overall, the book deserves four stars. I wouldn't go so far as to give it five, because there are some rather annoying issues in the book's format and the structure of Arnhart's *style* of argument. However, the book succeeds, for the most part, in defending Arnhart's theory, and it's VERY thought-provoking.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in nonreligious support for ethical systems, or in interactions of biology and ethics. It's not an easy read, but it's a good one.
A Fine Contribution to a Perilous Subject.......2000-07-03
Arnhart holds that the good is desirable, and since we are a natural species, the good can be discerned from our individual environments and our universal constitution as a species. Arnhart's contribution is Aristotelian, in that this philosopher started from the natural position of humanity (e.g., we are a zoon politican--a social animal) rather than from Plato's Ideal World. Arnhart is a Darwinian, in that our constitution as a specied derives from our evolutionary history.
This book can be read with profit by professional philosophers as well as beginners interested in understanding evolutionary ethics. It is clear and systematic, avoids jargon, and amply discusses alternative views.
I take issue with one part of Arnhart's analysis. I learned that "the good is the desirable" in my graduate student days in economics. I have always thought this quite incorrect (I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on the topic!). For instance, I may desire potato chips (or heroin) but not consider it good, and may indeed wish that I did not desire these things. In place of Arnhart's principle, I would suggest "The good is what allows us to flourish and to use our natural capacities to the fullest." The idea of flourishing as a criterion is associated with Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and others, and the idea of developing one's capacities to the fullest is associated with the young Karl Marx, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.
At any rate, virtually all of Arnhart's arguments go through with this minor change.
People like me, behavioral scientists, tend to ignore ethical philosophy and have contempt for its practitioners because it tries to find ethical truths independent from the natural position of human beings in the world. Arnhart is a wonderful antidote to this tendency, maintaining a high level of both philosophical and scientific reasoning.
A new look at morality and ethics.......2000-04-18
This book looks at morality or ethics and tries to tie together an Aristotelian with what we now know is a moral system that was part of our primate past. Part evolutionary psychology and part philosophy, it is well written, cogent and easy to read. Its message is simply that humans are social and political animals that have innate desires, but need not act on them. Humans can choose to act contrary to their evolutionary past in ethical terms. But also, political systems must not IGNORE our human nature either, or they will fail.
From page 259 of the book: To justify his laws, Moses repeatedly insisted that if the Jews obeyed, his laws, they and their children would survive and prosper in their new land. He made no claims about immortality of the soul or about rewards and punishments in an afterlife. Instead, like Darwin, he argued that the purpose of morality was to secure the earthly survival and prosperity of oneself and one's progeny. The first commandment of God in the Bible is "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). For Moses, promoting the survival and reproduction of the Jews required social norms that led individuals to cooperate within their group to compete with other groups (Deut. 4:40, 6:1-3, 11:8-9, 20, 23:9-14,25:11-16, 30:15-20). Moses taught that "whoever obeys the law will find life in it" (Lev. 18:5). Saint Paul cited this as the fundamental aim of the Mosaic Law (Rom. 10:5). It should not be surprising, therefore, that Darwinian theorists can explain the Mosaic law as promoting the reproductive interests of the Jews (Hartung 1995; MacDonald 1994, 35-55). As a product of natural human experience, not only Judaism but all religious beliefs and practices serve the natural desires of human beings in diverse social and physical environments, and consequently we would explain religion as an adaptation of human ecology (Burkert 1996; Reynolds and Tanner 1995).
So even one of the first moral successful systems, the Mosaic Law, recognized the purpose of morality in an evolutionary form, survival of the group. This book tries to go beyond group interests and argues (not always persuasively in my opinion) that a Darwinian morality can subsume the current value system that we all want to see.
The book covers the essence of an evolutionary morality. That is, humans evolved with social ranking, justice as reciprocity, political rule, war when group interests collide, religion to explain the fear of the unknown and eventual death, etc. Morality then became part of the pleasure of serving the tribe or belonging. Kin selection, inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity; these evolutionary processes required that humans have fear and guilt if they act against the tribe's rules. Morality included honor, fearlessness, willingness to die for the group -- that is what the communal sense was all about. Adherence to the tribes moral codes meant the group could fight of predators and other human groups when necessary. Those tribes that could not unify against a common enemy -- what we now call patriotism -- more than likely died out in favor of the more fearless tribes.
And how does this morality come about? Well contrary to what folk psychology tells us, from Dr. Laura to President Clinton, both conservatives and liberals, infants are born with a moral nature and seek the rules naturally. That is, even when playing with other children, a child will develop proper behavior by observing others and learning what works and what doesn't, similar to chimpanzees. So the moral do not have to be taught so much as just observed by children. We are naturally moral animals, but the morals change over time and are different for different cultures. However this book argues that we can now change those moral rules that should be abandoned: slavery, clitoridectomy, circumcision, cannibalism, genocide, etc. Perhaps.
Aristotelian View of Ethics Based on Human Biology.......1999-12-28
Arnhart argues that certain desires are universal in human societies because they are based in human biology. He sees this as grounding an Aristotelian view in which virtues are to be pursued because they promote eudaimonia--human flourishing. Humans can only flourish when biologically-based needs are satisfied. These needs include not only the appetitive ones like food and sex, but "higher" needs of meaningful social interaction and the pursuit of understanding. These universal needs provide the needed telos for judging the rightness or wrongness of actions: How well does the proposed action promote these biologically-based teloi? This view also provides a neutral standard whereby the ethical practices of diverse cultures may be judged, so complete ethichal relativism can be avoided. However, Arnhart recognizes that there may be multifarious, culturally-relative means of achieving the universal ends.
Amazon.com
You'll have to look hard to find a better explanation of the relationship between basic Christian tenets and the Darwinian theory of evolution than Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? by Michael Ruse. The author, a professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, writes with bracing candor ("Let me be open," he begins. "I think that evolution is a fact and that Darwinism rules triumphant.") and sophisticated sympathy to Christian doctrine ("if one's understanding of Darwinism does include a natural evolution of life from nonlife, there is no reason to think that this now makes Christian belief impossible."). Writing this book, he also clearly had a hell of a lot of fun (disarming skeptical Christian readers at the beginning, he asks, "Why should the devil have all the good tunes?"). Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? answers its title question with heady confidence--"Absolutely!"--but the book journeys towards that answer with circumspect integrity. Covering territory from the Scopes "Monkey Trial" to contemporary theories of social Darwinism to the question of extraterrestrial life, Ruse applies an impressive wealth of knowledge that encompasses many disciplines. Readers may or may not be swayed, but they can't help but be challenged and edified by this excellent book. --Michael Joseph Gross
Book Description
Can someone who accepts Darwin's theory of natural selection subscribe at the same time to the basic tenets of Christianity? Adopting a balanced perspective on the subject, Michael Ruse argues that, although it is at times difficult for a Darwinian to embrace Christian belief, it is not inconceivable. Ruse has produced an important contribution to a sometimes overheated debate for anyone interested in seeking an informed and judicious guide to these issues. Michael Ruse is professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He is the author of many books on evolutionary biology. In addition, he has published several hundred articles and many book reviews. He is the editor of the Cambridge Series in the Philosophy of Biology and founding editor of the journal IBiology & Philosophy. Hb ISBN (2000): 0-521-63144-0
Customer Reviews:
Good book overall, good background.......2007-05-31
This was overall an okay book, I suppose. It was not anything deeply profound, but it was worth the read, for sure. What I most liked about this book was the fact that there is really no prior knowledge needed about the subject. For example, he basically explains everything that you have to know about the biological aspects of evolution, some central church dogma, etc, before delving into the actual heart of the issue. In addtion, I thought that the presentation style was extremely clear, which made it much more informative for the casual reader. The organization of the book was pretty amazing, I'd have to say. Ruse breaks down each individual topic into little sub-topics that all make a lot of sense and follow a logical progression.
On this other hand, the fact that it for the most part does not assume prior knowledge also meant that one may get really bored at certain portions. Especially (for me, at least) the parts which introduced scientific concepts related to evolution, I just wanted to get those topics over which. For the most part, the religion side of the arguments were well presented, I think, although he does jump right in and start using words like ontology and teleology, which definitely confused me because I'm not particularly well read in this particular area. But I mean, overall the presentation was really good.
As far as the content, you definitely get the sense at certain points in the book that it's not really an evolution vs. Christianity debate but rather science vs. religion, and I guess some parts in the book I just didn't feel were really that applicable to the subject at hand. But the arguments overall made a lot of sense to me and I think this was really informative on the whole.
I was also really impressed by how much outside information Ruse brought into his book. He definitely did a lot of historical and contemporary research, Huxley, Darwin, Gould, Wilson, were mentioned many many times throughout the book and it definitely provides us with a good context with which to evaluate the arguments Ruse presents. What I thought was kind of interesting is that throughout the book he makes it pretty clear that he distains Richard Dawkins' position on the whole issue(like...A LOT of distain), which makes sense, I guess, since Ruse is a big fan of intelligent design, basically the opposite of Dawkins' advocacy. Lastly, I just really appreciate Ruse's attempt to write this book in such a clear and distinct manner, it's really good to see that a believer in intelligent design can just come out and admit that he is indeed himself a Darwinian and believes in evolution right from page 1. That was pretty good.
Fair, Clear, and Funny.......2006-05-26
This is a very informative and helpful book, and a real delight to read. It is written in a charitable spirit and irenic tone with liberal doses of good humor. I happen to be both an ardent Darwinian and a devout Christian (Reformed with Roman Catholic leanings, and also very admiring of the Greek Orthodox tradition), and as such I wish to commend Ruse not only for writing so passionately yet soberly about Darwinism but also for engaging the Christian faith in such a thoughtful and respectful manner. In reading this book, I have come to realize how complicated some of the issues are. Yet his central argument-that one can affirm both Christian theism and Darwinian evolutionism-is not at all complicated. Among contemporary philosophers writing in this area, Ruse is much better informed about science and--surprisingly for one who is not himself a Christian--about the breadth and flexibility of the Christian tradition than, say, Alvin Plantinga is. Plantinga, the foremost Christian philosopher of religion in our time (and a friend and former coparishioner whom I greatly love and admire), has not taken the time to learn the science as Ruse has, nor the effort to seriously question the assumptions of literalist readings of Genesis. In this book Ruse gives Plantinga, if not exactly a butt-kicking, at least a spanking, and a well-deserved one at that. At the other end of the spectrum, blowhard atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come off looking rather shortsighted and, in some ways, rather stupid in Ruse's book, even though Ruse has the utmost respect for them. I particular like the way that Ruse unpacks and clarifies the issues of pain (the problem of evil), freedom, and determinism. For me it is especially the Augustinian doctrine of original sin that needs serious rethinking in light of evolution, but on this point Ruse's treatment is so brief as to be only suggestive. Overall, I doubt that Ruse's book will gain a hearing from atheistic Darwinians, and certainly not from young-earth creationists. Agnostics might be willing to broaden their horizons with Ruse as their guide, but the real audience--and those with the most to gain--will be Christians who consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming and its implications glorifying to God. If Darwin made it possible for many people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists, Ruse has brightened the prospects for a lot of us becoming (even more) intellectually fulfilled theists.
Ruse leaves room for a God of the gaps.......2005-12-12
A more appropriate title for this book might have been _Is It Logically Possible for a Darwinian to Be a Christian?_ (but from an aesthetic perspective this would have been awful). Ruse deals with his subject soberly and respectfully, not something that can be said for all who have undertaken this project. Still, I have an objection, and I'm not sure Ruse himself would disagree with it. It is Ruse's position that the fact of evolution is not something over which reasonable people can disagree -- no problem so far. He also says that there are certain metaphysical conclusions (like supernatural creation of the universe) about which we cannot be absolutely sure. Again, I agree. However, acceptance of Darwinism (or science generally) has certain epistemological requirements, one of which is the basic assumption that the world is a predictable place -- the whole endeavor of science would be a waste of time without such a starting point. An easy corollary of this premise is that the laws of nature are never broken -- there is no such thing as magic. Yet Ruse counsels that when others claim that we can't be sure God didn't create the universe we should leave open the possibility, even though this violates the premise from which we began. He is aware of this (he deals with it in the form of a response from Daniel Dennett), and says the Darwinian should show some humility and accept the possibility of such a proposition. I guess I can go this far if he means we should accept the logical possibility of divine creation, but this is pretty weak. After all, there are many propositions -- some patently ridiculous -- that are not ruled out logically. One must sacrifice epistemological consistency to get on board with this Rusean compromise, something not all of us are willing to do.
This guy writes with Love.......2005-11-22
I don't say this lightly. He comes from a real Friendly Quaker perspective on things, in the process strongly affirming Christ's presence and reality in all places, and looking to see the Light of Truth wherever he looks. As a biologist Ruse affirms evolution, but he also shows how one can understand how this impacts the walk with God, and who God is in light of this. He honestly grapples with the difficulties that evolution poses- and equally honestly points out that the difficulties are largely nothing new in theology or philosophy. The problem of suffering, for instance, remains a problem, no larger nor smaller with the presence of evolution. Ruse also approaches the myriad possible understandings of this controversy, both scientifically and religiously, with care and compassion, affirming the search for truth by others, even if it does not agree with his understanding of the truth.
I found this book most helpful as a parallel to my own spiritual journey. I felt like Ruse was walking alongside me, helping me to clarify my own thoughts as he clarified his. Evolution doesn't bring up new problems for theology, true. But it magnifies those problems. So if we can solve those problems through the theory of evolution, or begin to, we come a lot closer to understanding God.
false conclusion.......2005-06-09
The author arrives at the incorrect answer to the question he approaches. Darwinian evolution is impossible without death. Thus, to allow that some single-celled organism evolved into people (an absurd conclusion, but beside the point of this review) depends on the acceptance of millions of millions of deaths before humans showed up.
However, we know from the Bible that death was a direct result of humankind's rebellion against God. This is a basic tenet of Christian belief. As such, it would be impossible for death to lead to the existence of humans. Therefore, there is no way darwinian evolution and Christian belief can coexist.
Average customer rating:
- A new perspective in psychiatry
- Psychiatry from an Evolutionary Perspective
- Exceptional Scholarly Work
- A state-of-the art review of the biology/psychiatry link
|
Darwinian Psychiatry
Michael McGuire , and
Alfonso Troisi
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Clinical Psychology
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Mental Illness
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Pathologies
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Psychoanalysis
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Mental Health
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Psychiatry
| Specialties
| Medicine
| Subjects
| Books
Internal Medicine
| Medicine
| Subjects
| Books
| Cardiology
| Critical Care
| Endocrinology & Metabolism
| Gastroenterology
| General
| Hematology
| Hepatology
| Infectious Disease
| Nephrology
| Neurology
| Oncology
| Pulmonary
| Rheumatology
| Urology
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Psychiatry
| Internal Medicine
| Medicine
| Medical
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Health Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Medicine
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Evolutionary Psychiatry: A New Beginning
-
Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine
-
Genes on the Couch: Explorations in Evolutionary Psychotherapy
-
The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology
-
The Two Million-year-old Self (Carolyn and Ernest Fay Series in Analytical Psychology)
ASIN: 0195116739 |
Book Description
For years, psychiatry has operated without a unified theory of behavior; instead, it has spawned a pluralism of approaches--including biomedical, psychoanalytic, behavioral, and sociocultural models--each with radically different explanations for various clinical disorders. In Darwinian Psychiatry, Michael T. McGuire and Alfonso Troisi provide a conceptual framework for integrating many features of prevailing models. Based on Darwinian theory rather than traditional approaches, the book offers clinicians a fundamentally new perspective for looking at the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Writing from this innovative theoretical position, the authors discuss the origin of pathological conditions, the adaptation of symptoms and syndromes, the biological basis of social relations, and many other key concepts. This groundbreaking book will introduce those who study and are involved in the alleviation of mental suffering to an approach that will lead to radical changes in clinical practice. The authors suggest that when making diagnostic assessments, psychiatrists should evaluate not only the patients' symptoms but also their functional capacities, and that therapeutic interventions should work toward the achievement of biological goals. Providing an essential framework for understanding both everyday human behavior and a range of mental disorders, Darwinian Psychiatry will appeal to all mental health professionals and general readers interested in human psychology and behavior.
Customer Reviews:
A new perspective in psychiatry.......2006-02-25
The title and the table of contents of this book were very interesting and exciting to me. The early pages kept my attention focused as well. But soon the writings became laborious to read. I have a good knowledge of psychiatry and evolution and my problem was not with the content of the book. The sentences were not flowing. I had to strain my mind not to lose tract. Also, the ideas and hypotheses were not lucid and sequential. I often wondered why something is discussed after something else. The logic and connection of concepts were rough and at times not clear. But I enjoyed the book anyway and learned some points from it.
Psychiatry from an Evolutionary Perspective.......2005-07-03
The authors complain that psychiatry is sort of all over the map without a controlling paradigm by which to measure behavior and provide correlated treatments. They state psychiatry is in disarray, with numerous theories and postulates, but no guiding theory upon which to form a model grounded in science. To rescue psychiatry from this abyss, they recommend that Darwinism be used as the new model that not only grounds theory in fact, but provides a clearer correlate between functional diagnosis (signs and symptoms) and suitable treatment (e.g., psychotropics and/or counseling). Does their new paradigm succeed? I'm convinced.
The book is short, a mere 270 pages. It's not intended as an introduction to psychiatry; in fact it presumes a significant acquaintance with most psychiatric concepts. The book intends that these given concepts be reexamined in light of Darwin's theory. Such concepts discussed in this context are: natural selection, adaptation, function, ultimate causation, individual fitness, self-interest, reciprocal altruism, proximate mechanisms, development, traits, learning, culture, and history strategies. The authors' approach is centered in a functional analysis of behavior that gives causal hypotheses and provides from assumptions that conditions will be more meaningfully classified and their contributing factors more rapidly identified (p. 81). Outward behavior gives events that are usually terms of separate genetic, physiological, and psychological mechanisms turn out to be subparts of infrastructures that contribute to specific functions (p. 92).
They state categorically: "Evolutionary models of mental conditions differ from psychiatry's model in a number of ways. Most critically, they are based on a theory of behavior that includes ultimate causes, biological motivations-goals, sexual selection, infrastructures, trait and trait variation, and the social environment. Proximate even6ts, such as genetic mistakes, predispositions, adverse environments, psychosocial stress, wrong or inadequate learning, dysfunctional physiological systems, and intrapsychic conflicts are sometimes, but not always, part of the explanation. Viewed this way, many conditions turn out to be minimally adaptive; some turn out to be adaptive, and some features of conditions represent attempts to act adaptively" (p. 149). The first half of the book explores these concepts in general, while the second half explores individual conditions such as anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, dysthymia, etc.
For example, "behavioral states, traits, and events are that (1) others' behavior initiates infrastructural activities that have physiological, psychological, and behavioral consequences; (2) interaction sequences can be viewed as functional units; (3) typical interaction sequences are often consequences of compromised infrastructures; and (4) inferences about infrastructure functionality can be made through the observation of behavior and its function" (p. 98). It's Number 3 that distinguishes this text from others in psychiatry. When the authors discuss moods, for example, they understand them as the failure to accurately process emotion-terminating feedback information optimally or functionally. The (in)ability of the species to adapt to its environment is key to understanding its (dys)function.
Two caveats. (1) This book must be read in sequential chapters, as each chapter builds upon the former. Moreover, the technique the authors use is heuristic, which builds their theory from the ground up. The authors find the methodology in DSM-IV unsuited for their purposes, and so begin with different first principles. Thus, in order to understand mood disorders, depression, and anxiety, one must first understand the Darwinian concepts of kin selection, reciprocity, survival, and reproduction presented under Theory of Personality. So, don't expect to go to the chapter on Depression and understand it solo.
Second, (2) while this book is written for and by professionals in the psychiatric field, its benefits and accessibility apply to all in the mental health professions. I have neither a degree in the field nor am I acquainted with some of the theories, disorders, and treatments discussed, but I found the authors' arguments and case histories easy to follow. Indeed, their lucid clarity, heuristic approach, and polished style make their theories stand out vibrantly. I also appreciated its concision. And, unlike so many other works under the appellation of evolutionary psychology, this text actually uses mental conditions to explicate its Darwinian precepts. I have a much clearer idea of what depression is and what kinds of intervention are best suited to treat it from an evolutionary perspective. Highly recommended.
Exceptional Scholarly Work.......2002-01-01
It is an exceptional, and very rare scholarly work of incredible science that tries to avoid human biases that can easily creep into
the evaluation of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and other therapies. As other good reviewers have said this book is very
comprehensive and written for the advanced reader but it is a MUST for ALL and should be mandatory reading for any
progressive school or person. The book discusses several human brain conditions from anxiety all to way to schizophrenia, and
discusses their definition, diagnosis, origins, prevalence, reasons for existing, etc.... What I specifically noted about this book,
apart from all the good that has been written, is its attempt to remove, as much as possible, human biases in the science of
psychology, and psychiatry and to just state "Just the facts mam". They even admit to the pitfalls of the traditional fields of
psychology, and psychiatry (e.g. psychoanalysis). A MUST for those wanting to move on beyond the traditional psychobable
and self-help; towards real science.
An extremely interesting book detailing evolutionary human behavior. Covers a very wide range from the history of evolutionary
thinking to the latest views. Includes: kin selection, friendship, family, group, and tribal behavioral dynamics as viewed from an
evolutionary point of view.
For further reading:
The Moral Animal : The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
Charles Darwin by John Bowlby
Evolutionary Psychiatry : A New Beginning by Anthony Stevens, John Price
Darwinian Psychiatry by Michael T. McGuire, Alfonso Troisi
A state-of-the art review of the biology/psychiatry link.......1999-07-20
The authors are accomplished psychiatrists who here bring together the wealth of information from contemporary biology, studies of animal behavior, and evolutionary theory, to consider their impact on the practice of psychiatry. Darwinian Psychiatry is an amazing book for its scholarship, erudition, and comprehensiveness. It shows decisively how the mind/body and nature/culture dichotomies are not only pointlessly wrong but scientifically and medically dangerous. It is by no means a simple book to read because of the density of technical information. But it is relatively jargon-free and designed to be helpful to medics interested in treating sick people as well as scientists pursuing fundamental studies. It is a work of quite bewilderingly impressive skill.
Average customer rating:
- A little bit disappointing
- Mathematical Darwinism
- Life is a game
- A Mathematical Approach to Evolution
|
Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics
Thomas L. Vincent , and
Joel S. Brown
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Applied
| Mathematics
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Game Theory
| Applied
| Mathematics
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Game Theory
| Applied
| Mathematics
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Applied
| Mathematics
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Evolutionary Game Theory
-
Evolution and the Theory of Games
-
Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life
-
Designing Economic Mechanisms
-
Evolutionary Theory
ASIN: 0521841704 |
Book Description
All of life is a game and evolution by natural selection is no exception. The evolutionary game theory developed in this book provides the tools necessary for understanding many of nature’s mysteries, including co-evolution, speciation, extinction and the major biological questions regarding fit of form and function, diversity, procession, and the distribution and abundance of life. Mathematics for the evolutionary game are developed based on Darwin's postulates leading to the concept of a fitness generating function (G-function). G-function is a tool that simplifies notation and plays an important role developing Darwinian dynamics that drive natural selection. Natural selection may result in special outcomes such as the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). An ESS maximum principle is formulated and its graphical representation as an adaptive landscape illuminates concepts such as adaptation, Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, and the nature of life’s evolutionary game.
Download Description
All of life is a game and evolution by natural selection is no exception. The evolutionary game theory developed in this book provides the tools necessary for understanding many of nature's mysteries, including co-evolution, speciation, extinction and the major biological questions regarding fit of form and function, diversity, procession, and the distribution and abundance of life. Mathematics for the evolutionary game are developed based on Darwin's postulates leading to the concept of a fitness generating function (G-function). G-function is a tool that simplifies notation and plays an important role developing Darwinian dynamics that drive natural selection. Natural selection may result in special outcomes such as the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). An ESS maximum principle is formulated and its graphical representation as an adaptive landscape illuminates concepts such as adaptation, Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, and the nature of life's evolutionary game.
Customer Reviews:
A little bit disappointing.......2006-04-19
I am not a biologist, but an engineer interested in evolution and mathematics.
The mathematics of the book is very easy, the only (very) confusing issue are the indices.
The G-function is introduced a bit ad-hoc, but as a definition, this might not matter much. It is very clear, that by allowing the strategy to vary, one can get optimal (at least stationary) values. The strategy dynamics are introduced in a rather confusing way, without much of an explanation.
For the rest, it seems, that 80% of the book are numerical examples, which seem to prove mostly, that with nonlinear differential equations, the behaviour of (e.g.) stationary points can vary quite a bit, if the coefficients in those equations are changed.
Maybe a professional biologist gets a lot out of this book, but for the interested layman it offers little (except upteen numerical examples, see above)
Mathematical Darwinism.......2005-11-17
First, full disclosure: I am a colleague and friend of the authors, Thomas L. Vincent and Joel S. Brown, and I reviewed the entire book during its writing.
Game theory is a fairly recent development in mathematics, having been introduced in the 1940's. Evolutionary Game Theory is more recent yet - Maynard Smith and Price put it on the map with their publication in Nature in 1973 on the Logic of Animal Conflict. Maynard Smith then more fully elaborated the application of matrix games to evolution with his 1982 volume, Evolution and the Theory of Games. Vincent and Brown trace their contribution to the pioneering developments of Maynard Smith, but in this volume, they go much further. As I reviewed the eleven chapters as they were first written, I felt the privilege of observing, first hand, the construction of a great edifice. In this edifice, the dynamics of ecology is dovetailed with the dynamics of heritable strategies. The tool that accomplishes this is the fitness generating function, known as the G-function. Particularly brilliant is the invention of the virtual strategy, a scalar or vector "place holder" in the G-function. The great virtue of the virtual strategy is that it represents any focal individual taking on any strategy within the entire strategy set of the species. The fitness generating function then determines the fitness for that virtual strategy within the biotic and abiotic environment defined by the set of arguments (e.g., resident strategies, their population sizes, abundance of resources, etc.) defining the G-function. With G-function in hand, Evolutionary Game Theorists now have a mathematical Darwinism - a formal mathematical expression of Darwin's three postulates: a) like begets like; b) organisms struggle for existence; c) heritable traits help determine the outcome of the struggle. With the G-function, we can predict both the dynamics of heritable strategies and the adaptive outcome of natural selection.
Vincent and Brown begin, in Chapter 1, with an historical and philosophical overview of Evolutionary Game Theory and its relationship to the more traditional approach of Evolutionary Genetics. They then proceed to lay the mathematical foundations (Chapters 2 - 7), constructing the theory of Evolutionary Games and the G-function. These chapters each contain useful examples, teaching the student of evolutionary games how to apply the G-function. Noteworthy is that most all of the examples in these chapters represent continuous, as opposed to matrix games. In matrix games, which constitute the bulk of early development of Evolutionary Game Theory, and with which most readers are probably most familiar, strategies are discrete rather than continuous. However, the continuous games elaborated by Vincent and Brown (and now, many others) are of far more useful application in Evolutionary Ecology. Key contributions here are the precise mathematical definition of Maynard Smith's seminal Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) in Chapter 6, and the formulation of the ESS Maximum Principle in Chapter 7. This principle establishes the well-recognized properties of the ESS of invasion resistance and convergent stability, but also the fit of form and function - the ESS strategy is an adaptation - it maximizes individual fitness given the circumstances.
Chapter 8, which treats species concepts, speciation, and extinction, is particularly enlightening. Here the G-function shines! Under traditional approaches, a huge chasm, conceptual and methodological, separates microevolution and macroevolution. Vincent and Brown, armed with the G-function, unify the two: Microevolution is repeatable and reversible evolutionary dynamics within a G-function. Macroevolution is the production of novel G-functions. They demonstrate the versatility of the G-function approach to Evolutionary Game Theory in their discussion of three contexts for extinction (which is as integral to evolution as is speciation). Vincent and Brown introduce many key concepts in Chapter 8. Perhaps most important is their strategy species concept, which relies on their definition of the species archetype. They provide a particularly cogent definition of a species that is ecologically keystone (its presence promotes the persistence, in ecological time, of other species in the community), but they also point out that a species can by evolutionarily keystone - when its presence increases the numbers of species at an ESS. Using these developments, Vincent and Brown investigate mechanisms of speciation, including sympatric speciation, allopatric speciation, adaptive radiations, coevolution, Wright's shifting balance theory, and incumbent replacement. They conclude with a tour de force: a concise and brilliant discussion of the Procession of Life. As they aptly demonstrate, with the G-function approach to the Game of Life, theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium, oft cited as a contradiction of Darwinian Evolution, instead result naturally from Darwin's three postulates!
Chapter 9 is perhaps the least exciting chapter, but it serves the utilitarian purpose of melding the matrix approach to Evolutionary Game Theory with the G-function approach. This is, indeed, required reading for those who think matrix games are the only game in town.
Chapters 10 and 11 are well worth the wait and development. In these chapters, Vincent and Brown apply the G-function to an impressive diversity of problems arising in the beautiful metaphor of Hutchinson, the Ecological Theater and Evolutionary Play. Though the diversity of topics covered in these two chapters is impressive, as Vincent and Brown state, it represents only a subset of the problems that can be investigated with G-functions. Chapter 10 addresses "basic" issues of Evolutionary Ecology - a who's who of fundamental subjects. These include: Habitat selection and the ideal free distribution; Consumer-resource games, with examples on plant competition and root-shoot ratio; Carcinogenesis (a must read for all interested in Darwinian Medicine); Flowering time for annual plants; Root competition; and Foraging games.
Chapter 11 turns to the G-function as a fundamental tool for Applied Evolutionary Ecology. Here Vincent and Brown examine: Evolutionary responses to harvesting; Resource management and conservation; and Chemotherapy-driven evolution. They contrast management based on ecological enlightenment with that based on evolutionary enlightenment (prescriptions based on each emphasis are not always identical!). They point out the resemblance of control of a cancer with chemotherapy with control of a population through hunting. The analysis is striking, with the main message that if all cancer cells are not destroyed by a chemotherapy session, the survivors will evolve as the first step of what they call chemotherapy-driven evolution. If ever Evolutionary Ecologists were looking for a raison d'être, here they have it!
Life is a game.......2005-08-29
Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics by Thomas L. Vincent and Joel S. Brown is a book that not only belongs among the classics of evolutionary theory, but should have pride of place on the shelf right after Darwin's Origin of Species and Maynard Smith's Evolution and the Theory of Games.
This book makes a novel, interesting and readable contribution to the proper understanding of Darwinian processes in evolution. Based on more than twenty years of collaboration between the authors, the book is a comprehensive review of Darwinian theory newly cast in an over-arching mathematical framework. Unlike Stephen Jay Gould's recent overview of evolutionary theory (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002, 1433 pages), Vincent & Brown's book is concise (382 pages), uncluttered, and supported by an elegant skeleton of mathematical theory.
Don't let the math dissuade you however. If you have read Origin of Species and have a familiarity with classic evolutionary games, you won't have trouble understanding this book. Text and numerous examples provide a clear conceptual explanation of equations throughout.
The book's premise is that life is a game and its players have strategies. Understood as such, the authors present fitness-generating functions (G-functions) that encompass strategy, population, and Darwinian dynamics to model evolutionary outcomes. The first chapter introduces this philosophy; the next six chapters develop the theory, presenting classic population models (Ch. 2) and evolutionary games (Ch. 3), then forging new theory through deriving G-functions (Ch. 4), modeling Darwinian dynamics (Ch. 5), finding the evolutionary stable strategies (ESS, Ch. 6) and developing their general ESS maximum principle (Ch. 7).
The authors are able to side-step population-genetics models (and notably, are able to explain WHY this is possible), and build a general model of Darwinian evolution. An immediate insight of their general model is the concept of flexible landscapes, which re-envisions the notion that natural selection cannot cross valleys on evolutionary landscapes, one of the fundamental criticisms of Darwinian theory since the New Synthesis. Exploration of Vincent & Brown's model illustrates that flexible landscapes can shift under evolving populations so that "valleys" are spanned by continuously uphill routes, re-forming behind evolving populations after they have passed. Further, Vincent & Brown derive the general conditions where flexible landscapes will or will not occur (frequency-dependent vs. -independent evolution respectively).
Armed with their general theory, Vincent & Brown are not content to stop after illuminating the valley conundrum, however, and go on in subsequent chapters to apply their theory to classic problems in evolution (Ch. 8; sympatric and allopatric speciation, co-evolution, the difference between micro- and macro-evolution) and ecology (Ch. 9 & 10; sex ratios, cooperation, ideal free distribution, consumer-resource competition), and even medicine (Ch. 10; the ontogenesis of cancer, chemotherapy) and ec
Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease
Evolutionary Medicine
Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease
Evolving Health: The Origins of Illness and How the Modern World is Making Us Sick
The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
